‘If you’re serious about losing weight, why are you drinking all those Cokes?’: a critical discourse analysis of interviews on sugar-sweetened beverages amongst residents of a middle to upper class neighborhood in Winnipeg, Manitoba
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
Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) have been identified as a health policy target, due to their associations with weight gain. However, fatness or ‘obesity’ is associated with stigma, and for ‘obese’ children, mother blame; thus, SSB policies must be evaluated for their potential to reinforce existing forms of stigma. The purpose of this study was to explore discourses mobilized in discussion of SSB consumption and purchasing amongst residents of a middle-upper class neighborhood in Winnipeg, Canada. We conducted a critical discourse analysis of qualitative interviews from 2019, with English-speaking, adult participants using purposive sampling. Eighteen participants were recruited; fifteen were women, all self-identified as white and spoke about (grand)parenting. Considerations of weight stigmatization informed analysis. Participants utilized a personal responsibility discourse to determine the acceptability of SSB purchasing and consumption. Negative emotions, or judgements, shaped discussion of regular SSB consumption, consumption by higher-weight individuals, or consumption in specific contexts, which were unacceptable. Parental responsibility was a discourse applied to children’s SSB intake and elicited judgmental language, particularly among mothers. The discourses utilized by dominant social groups are stigmatizing, particularly when directed towards higher-weight individuals, leading to maternal blame. Therefore, the impact of SSB policies on stigma, including weight-based stigma, should be carefully considered prior to implementation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it