Fattening somatic movement: Fat time, epistemology, and performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fat bodies in movement are often marked as a “travesty” and met with mockery. Particularly, fat people are commonly constructed as out of place in movement and exercise. Movement such as dancing may be assembled as a form of artistry that fat bodies cannot or should not embody. In particular dancing in a fat temporality that celebrates the ways fat bodies move with flesh, rolls, and marks is seldom celebrated or seen in many spaces. In the frame of resistance, dancing fat embodiment can be a strong form of fat activism that breaks barriers within spaces such as dance. In this article, our aim is twofold: 1) to locate dance in a fat temporality and epistemology, and 2) introduce and contextualize somatic movement and dance as a choreographic method that aligns with fat temporalities and performance. Dance as a method of fat performance creates fat time where fat bodies can exist in a space often denied for fat people and performers. Specifically, dancing fat creates a temporality where fatness moves through its tempo of being, can resist containment, and stretch boundaries of space. Given the relevance of dance to create fat temporalities, we propose somatic movement as a choreographic method. Somatic dance requires the performer to devise their own choreography, aligning with fat epistemology and knowledge. Further, the power of performing somatic dance in a fat body destabilizes ideals that thin bodies are the only ones relegated to take up space in movement, both in the choreography and performance. Furthermore, devised somatic performances can tell stories, create fat time, and unsettle spaces of power. It is our hope that this chapter outlines the importance of dance in fat performance and offers a distinct choreographic method that values the lived knowledge and experiences of fat people.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".