Margins of freedom: a field‐theoretic approach to class‐based health dispositions and practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pierre Bourdieu's theory of practice situates social practices in the relational interplay between experiential mental phenomena (habitus), resources (capitals) and objective social structures (fields). When applied to class-based practices in particular, the overarching field of power within which social classes are potentially made manifest is the primary field of interest. Applying relational statistical techniques to original survey data from Toronto and Vancouver, Canada, we investigated whether smoking, engaging in physical activity and consuming fruit and vegetables are dispersed in a three-dimensional field of power shaped by economic and cultural capitals and cultural dispositions and practices. We find that aesthetic dispositions and flexibility of developing and established dispositions are associated with positioning in the Canadian field of power and embedded in the logics of the health practices dispersed in the field. From this field-theoretic perspective, behavioural change requires the disruption of existing relations of harmony between the habitus of agents, the fields within which the practices are enacted and the capitals that inform and enforce the mores and regularities of the fields. The three-dimensional model can be explored at: http://relational-health.ca/margins-freedom.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".