MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182716586 · doi:10.32920/cd.v6i1.1451

Karens: Examining white female power dynamics in dietetics

2021· article· en· W3182716586 on OpenAlex
Mikahelia Wellington

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Critical Dietetics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite (mutation)Dynamics (music)Power (physics)PsychologyBiologyPhysicsThermodynamicsPedagogyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a vulnerable and brave opinion piece motivated by the hope for change and desire to inspire and open new opportunitiesfor readers to become accomplices in racial justice movements.Through an intersectional theoretical perspective, a Black cisfemale dietitian shares her stories of distressing experiences of anti-Black racism within the feminist environment of dietetics.Using examples from the academic, practicum, and workplace settings along with comparisons to notable historical and contemporary incidences, the author highlights how a particular form of microaggression and entitlement, captured through the term "Karen", creates significant forms of oppression for students, dietitians, and patients of colour, particularly those living in Black skin.Furthermore, the selected narratives will demonstrate how the term calls attention to particular chosen behaviours and is not a slight.These "counterstories" to the dominant narrative are grounded in lived experiences and will be used to enlighten and prompt self-reflection.The intention is to give voice to people of colour who are struggling with the consequences of abused white female power without putting them at risk of penalization and judgment.The author will also offer honest recommendations that may be considered unconventional and bold within the profession, as initial steps towards allyship and facilitating anti-oppression.This will also allow space for white women working in the profession to question and consider how their perception of equity might be expanded to allow room for acceptance and diversity.

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.

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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.347 · 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