Changing the global obesity narrative to recognize and reduce weight stigma: A position statement from the World Obesity Federation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weight stigma, defined as pervasive misconceptions and stereotypes associated with higher body weight, is both a social determinant of health and a human rights issue. It is imperative to consider how weight stigma may be impeding health promotion efforts on a global scale. The World Obesity Federation (WOF) convened a global working group of practitioners, researchers, policymakers, youth advocates, and individuals with lived experience of obesity to consider the ways that global obesity narratives may contribute to weight stigma. Specifically, the working group focused on how overall obesity narratives, food and physical activity narratives, and scientific and public-facing language may contribute to weight stigma. The impact of weight stigma across the lifespan was also considered. Taking a global perspective, nine recommendations resulted from this work for global health research and health promotion efforts that can help to reduce harmful obesity narratives, both inside and outside health contexts.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
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 it