MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394977229 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30089

“Coke’s not a food”: A critical discourse analysis of sugar-sweetened beverage tax acceptability by white residents from an upper-middle class neighborhood in Winnipeg Manitoba

2024· article· en· W4394977229 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anne Waugh, Patricia Thille, Kerstin Roger, Andrea E. Bombak, Kelsey Mann, Natalie D. Riediger

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMiddle classWhite (mutation)CokeCritical discourse analysisFamily and consumer scienceSugarClass (philosophy)Agricultural economicsEnvironmental healthAdvertisingFood sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringBusinessEconomicsMedicineWaste managementChemistryLawMathematics educationPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing concerns about the health impacts of sugar consumption has led to the proposition of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax in Canada. However, competing concerns related to stigma and equity remain and have not been explored in a Canadian context. As part of a broader study examining the perspectives of various populations on SSB tax acceptability, we examined how residents of an upper-middle class neighborhood conceptualize SSB tax acceptability, and we explored the discourses that inform their discussion. We conducted and analyzed qualitative, semi-structured interviews with residents of an upper-middle class neighborhood in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Recruitment criteria were residence, adults, and English speaking. Critical discourse analysis methodology was used, and healthism (health moralism) and tax psychology informed the analysis. Eighteen participants volunteered: 15 females and 3 males; all self-identified as white, and all spoke about (grand)parenting. Healthist discourse was utilized in supportive discussion of SSB taxation. With the mobilization of healthism, ideal citizens and parents were described as "health conscious" and those who might be likely to reduce SSB intake because of taxation. Healthism also contributed to their identification of beverages targeted by a tax, versus those they deemed as having redeeming nutritional qualities. Limits to SSB tax support were expressed as fairness concerns, with a focus on the procedural justice of the tax. Participants supported SSB taxation and the discourses they employed suggested support for the tax was perceived as contributing to their construction of the kind of ideal, health-valuing citizens they hoped to embody. However, participants were also concerned about the fairness of implementation, although this did not outweigh the prioritization of good health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0310.024
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicTaxation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207