“Healthy” food configurations: critical analysis of power relations in context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we delve into the contexts, knowledge and power relations that lead to the emergence of what we call "healthy" food configurations. These configurations are the result of particular arrangements of realms of practices, sets of knowledge, actors, events, institutions, and more that contribute to the production of various understandings and ways of approaching "healthy" food. Mobilizing a cultural studies approach and theoretical framework, we question the power relations negotiated in how/when/for whom these configurations emerge and what knowledge at the intersection of food, bodies and health they convey and produce. We analyze the elements of local context and the broader socio-cultural ideologies that permeate food cultures and inform these configurations' emergence. Working with and navigating through public debates, alternative food practices, political and community-based discourses and practices, and food products and trends retrieved from Quebec's (Canada) food culture, we offer a new way of approaching different understandings of "healthy" food – as many different configurations – to unveil the diversity of the actors, knowledge, and power relations at play in their situated emergence.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".