Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents my analysis of what I call the contemporary “biomedicalized food culture”. This food culture participates in defining the ways by which “healthy” food is currently understood and practiced, and in creating and orienting particular relationships between bodies and food. In this paper, I present Clarke et al.’s (2010) works on biomedicalization along with the works of researchers in critical food studies (such as Guthman (2014); Landecker (2011); Scrinis (2013)), which have inspired my analysis of the biomedicalized food culture. Inspired by Clarke et al.’s (2010) ways of presenting the biomedicalization of the social field, I present the contemporary biomedicalized food culture from and through its constitutive processes. Drawing from my fieldwork in Montreal, Canada, I discuss how mediatization, molecularization and commercialization processes participate in the development of the biomedicalized food culture as well as in the creation of knowledge and practices constitutive of “healthy” food, bodies, and the links between them. I approach this culture from a cultural studies’ perspective, which makes it possible to question the power relationships at stake in its development. I thus criticize how the biomedicalized food culture contributes to the (re)production of exclusions, discriminations, stigmatizations of some knowledge, practices and individuals, as well as to the (re)production of injunctions and normativities linking food, bodies and health, in particular and situated ways at the intersection of its constitutive processes. I finish up by opening up the discussion on how these relationships between food, bodies and health should be thought in their multiplicity and their complexity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".