Book Review: Eileen Kennedy & Pirkko Markula (Eds.). Women and Exercise: The Body, Health and Consumerism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the realm of women's health, exercise is one obvious kind of 'preventive care' that depends both on an individual's decision about whether to participate and on larger cultural imaginaries and meanings of the benefits and drawbacks of exercise on women's bodies (Abou-Rizk & Rail, 2012).According to mainstream medicine, exercise can help women build muscles, increase cardiovascular endurance, and prevent osteoporosis (Karinkanta et al., 2009;Oja et al., 2011;Vogel et al., 2009).Even the cognitive benefits of exercise have been identified, such as an improved ability to think clearly, make quick decisions, possibly even the prevention of dementia (Ahlskog et al., 2011).However, when taken to extremes, exercise can also have a negative impact on women's health: it can lead to osteoporosis, amenorrhea, dysmorphic body image, and eating disorders (Golden, 2011).While exercise may have downsides, including the risk of injury, government policies, public health officials, and researchers alike encourage women to engage in exercise on a regular basis because overall it is deemed good for health.The nuances of what physical activity means to different stakeholders and in different places are lost on some researchers and politicians.Few researchers have explored 1) the validity of research about physical activity, 2) government-based physical activity guidelines, and 3) how neoliberal discourses about monitoring and regulating one's body to be a productive citizen help to shape the exercise messaging for the general public.Some scholars have also suggested that research examining the benefits of exercise do not take into account important intervening/conflating factors such as gender, race, and socioeconomic status (Gard & Wright, 2005).Women and Exercise: The Body, Health & Consumerism opens a welcomespace for discusison of these issues by examining women and exercise from various theoretical perspectives and geographic locales, locating the book within a feminist comparative sociology of sport.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.104 | 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".