Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-fat attitudes and stigmatizing practices have been identified in dietetics students. The relationship between dietetics curriculum and students’ attitudes towards body size has not been well explored. Studies suggest that body size is covered within a weight-centric paradigm in both nutrition and non-nutrition undergraduate courses. Content about weight bias is less frequently taught. The objective of this study was to critically analyze the ways in which the discourses related to body size, weight, and body composition were constructed in course syllabi of required nutrition courses in English-speaking accredited undergraduate dietetics programs in Canada. A critical discourse analysis method was used. Syllabi of required nutrition courses were requested from each of the twelve Canadian undergraduate dietetics programs. The obtained syllabi were analyzed to uncover the discourses within these texts and to understand how body size, weight, and body composition were constructed. Of the 220 syllabi requested, 68 (31%) syllabi were received and reviewed. Twenty-eight (41%) of these syllabi contained the terminology of interest. The language used within the analyzed syllabi created representations of weight, body composition, and body size predominately within a weight-centric paradigm. Weight-centric discourses were found mostly within clinical nutrition courses. Discourses that challenged the weight-centric paradigm were limited and were found mostly within public health, food service, or professional practice courses. To reduce the harms of weight stigma and anti-fat bias, Canadian undergraduate dietetics courses need to shift their discourse towards weight-inclusive practice.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".