The Excessive Body and The Sickly Soul: Christian Nutritionists and Contemporary Gluttony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning with a brief anecdote relaying why this topic is both important to me on a personal level as well as why it matters on a grander scale, this paper explores the Christian Seven Deadly Sin of gluttony in contemporary contexts. This paper delves into the history behind the Seven Sins, ultimately focusing more precisely on gluttony and how it has historically been understood by many Christians. With a brief aside to the Christian practice and importance of fasting, this paper also looks at the psychological rationale for gluttony and the worry that this psychological understanding may lead gluttony to be seen as acceptable within society. Next, the paper discusses two case studies within Christian nutrition, Chelsea Blackbird and First Place 4 Health, as a means to better situate gluttony and obesity in a contemporary context for modern day Protestant Christians. The essay then goes into how weight and gluttony affect women within the tradition, and finally goes into possible counter-arguments for this paper and its findings. The paper concludes with an overview of the information presented as well as the implications gluttony has on society at large.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".