MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379661888 · doi:10.53841/bpslg.2016.7.2.63

Through thick and thin: Storying queer women’s experiences of idealised body images and expected body management practices

2006· article· en· W4379661888 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Jen Rinaldi, Carla Rice, Andrea LaMarre, Karleen Pendleton Jiménez, Elisabeth Harrison, May Friedman, Deborah McPhail, Margaret Robinson, Tracy Tidgwell

Bibliographic record

VenueLesbian & gay psychology review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWomen's College Hospital
KeywordsQueerNegotiationResistance (ecology)EmpathyGender studiesSociologyThe artsIdentity negotiationTemporalityAestheticsPsychologySocial psychologyVisual artsArtEpistemologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we examine how discourses of obesity and eating disorders reinforce cissexist and heteronormative body standards. Sixteen queer women in Canada produced autobiographical micro-documentaries over the course of two workshops. We identified three major themes across these films: bodily control, bodies as sites of metamorphosis, and celebration of bodies. Such films can be memorable, cultivate empathy, disrupt misunderstanding of queer bodies, and inform medical practice. Our analysis suggests that research and policy on ‘disordered’ bodies must better account for how people negotiate discourses around body shape and size, how shaming is internalised, how regulation can function as resistance, and how variant bodies can be embraced, desired, and celebrated. Community-grounded, arts-based research points to new ways of gathering and producing knowledge.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.401 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLesbian & gay psychology reviewSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207