MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898441008 · doi:10.1080/21604851.2019.1532231

Understanding fatness: Jamaican women’s constructions of health

2018· article· en· W2898441008 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Barned, Kieran C. O’Doherty

Bibliographic record

VenueFat Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyGender studiesSociologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of dominant health discourses has been observed in many Western countries. These discourses tend to associate fatness with ill health, perpetuating stigma and negative attributions about bigger bodies. The authors examine women’s constructions of health in an urban Jamaican context. The findings show that women generally reproduce the dominant (Western) “obesity epidemic” discourse, but also take up a local cultural discourse, which the authors call the slim-thick healthy body discourse. The authors describe the features of this discourse and contrast it with the dominant “obesity epidemic” discourse. They conclude by considering both positive and negative implications of both discourses and suggest possibilities for challenging them.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.490
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.052 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFat StudiesSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207