Community-Based Participatory Research and Fat Studies: Tensions and Alignments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an overarching methodology taken up across various disciplines. Rather than a specific approach, CBPR encompasses varied action-based methodologies. While many disciplines use CBPR methodologies in their work, Fat Studies has yet to broadly create research that uses CBPR methodologies. Fat Studies counters many dominant fields that examine and pathologize the body. Rather than viewing Fat as a site of moral panic and concern, Fat Studies values the subjectivity, fluidity, and embodied experience of what it means to be Fat. As CBPR methodologies share a commitment towards critical, emancipatory, and social action research, the potential intersection with Fat Studies is noteworthy, however limited literature at this intersection exists. In this article, we highlight the alignments and tensions between CBPR and Fat Studies while offering future directions for scholars at this intersection.
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 | 0.393 | 0.325 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.162 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".