"A Disconnect Between What She Wanted To Do And Her Ability To Act Upon It": Complexities Of Agency In Discourses Of Treatment For Youth With Eating Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project analyzes the discourses circulating about young people with eating disorders (ED) in popular and legal materials.Through use of discourse analysis through a Foucauldian lens, I have determined major themes in how we make sense of involuntary treatment, in particular.In analyzing cases from the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) and newspaper articles from The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Sun, and National Post I drew out common narratives and themes.Agency, not surprisingly in the current medico-political context was noted throughout all texts, and was found to be alongside or in opposition to, discourses of protection.I drew out three themes which framed this overarching tension: (1) hospitalization experiences: outcome oriented approaches to treatment; (2) the family unit: a source of harm and care; and (3) the patient as a broken child.Legislative documents and regulatory frameworks were used to provide the backdrop upon which this discourse plays out.Youth with EDs are the bodies upon which these discourses are written, producing them as particular kinds of subjects.My analysis reveals that there remain fundamental tensions in how we understand the young person with an eating disorder and how they should be treated.Any progressive changes to legislation or health care frameworks must address these tensions around youth agency or they will merely reproduce the current issues.
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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".