Fat chat : an exploration of obesity discourses in Canadian media and their impacts on social work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Major Research Paper conducted a critical discourse analysis of Canadian Press articles focused on obesity. This research sought to understand how the articles constructed obesity, what discourses were operating, and what power relations were at play. The three main discourses that shaped the articles were mother blame, the medical model, and economics. They became evident through photographs, language used, gendered power relations, medicalized understandings of health and solutions to obesity, and who was profiting or benefitting from these understandings and solutions. Social work practitioners and educators need to consider these discourses when conceptualizing obesity, and strive to contextualize individual experiences of fatness within broader structural and systemic power relations. Social workers also need to be cautious about reproducing oppressive anti-obesity practices, social work is a profession that has historically been an agent of social control and discipline.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".