Injecting care and negotiating pleasures with weight loss pharmaceuticals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent rise of injectable ‘wonder drugs’ for weight loss has been rapid and unregulated (so rapid that it has resulted in a worldwide shortage of Ozempic). We analyse the commercialisation of these drugs, and the political manoeuvres companies engage in to leverage and manufacture the gendered capitalism of ‘care’. Marketing relies heavily on situating ‘obesity’ as a chronic disease influenced by genes or other aspects of biology, working therefore to supposedly mitigate the blame and shame of the taken-for-granted aetiology of ‘obesity’, overwhelmingly understood as excess food intake and insufficient activity. Armed with this evidence, women are told to ‘stand up against weight care judgement’ and to engage in ‘shame free’ care. Pharmaceutical interventions are at the ready to inject this weekly dose of care, producing freedom through neoliberal pleasure but, ironically, in doing so, sacrificing the pleasure of food and non-conditional self-acceptance as vital forms of self-care.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".