“We’re number fat!”: reflections on fat fastpitch with the heavy hitters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper tells the story about the formation of the Heavy Hitters, a fat-identified softball team in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Heavy Hitters responded to chronic fatphobia in the city by building fat community through organized sports. Since physical activity is categorized as “something only ‘the athletes’ do”, fat people often negotiate fatphobic discourses when participating in group sports. These discourses negatively prescribe fat subjectivity while also emphasizing feelings of “alienation, dread, and disembodiment”. Further, in group sports, many fat people carry lifelong memories and feelings of humiliation, vulnerability and incompetency resulting from multi-layered experiences of fat stigma and exclusion. Utilizing collaborative autoethnography, the authors synthesize their experiences forming and playing on the Heavies within relevant literature and theories of fat activism (e.g. Ellison et al., 2016). This paper brings together the authors’ previous interdisciplinary approaches to issues of fatphobia and gatekeeping in organized and individual sports in efforts to challenge academic conventions which continue to center medicalized and healthist understandings of the “whys” fat people move their bodies. By focusing on the Heavies’ shared and intentional activisms against fat stigma, this paper offers new ways to imagine a future where fat athletes inject activism into physical activity by rejecting weight-loss culture and enjoying sports in the bodies that they have right now.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".