Assessing Fatphobia in Public Library Programming: Is Wellness Size-Inclusive?
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
This content analysis of wellness-related library programs and programming materials seeks to discover the perception of larger bodies within library health programming. Fatphobia or sizeism is prevalent in the wellness industry and within healthcare. Libraries are trusted resources for health information. Informed by the fields of fat studies, we approached health programming in libraries by asking if larger people would feel welcome and able to attend. We examined twenty libraries’ programs over the past year as well as library conference programs and programming materials from several websites. There was little evidence of explicit sizeism, but some resources reproduced sizeist stereotypes and language. This presentation takes a fat pedagogy approach to focus on methods for ensuring access to all and expanding current definitions of inclusivity so that people with larger bodies recognize that libraries are welcoming spaces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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