Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Cet article analyse la forme et la fonction des carnets de recettes, ces petits livres de recettes omniprésents et auxquels on accorde que peu d’importance, fabriqués à des fins publicitaires et publiés de manière irrégulière. Après un examen attentif, on remarque que les caractéristiques du carnet de recettes sont curieusement invariables. En conséquence, il semble y avoir un paradoxe lorsque le carnet de recettes ordinaire est considéré parallèlement au mode dont il est un sous-ensemble : l’éphémère. Plutôt que d’associer le carnet de recettes ordinaire à sa particularité d’être éphémère, je propose de l’examiner en tant que sous-ensemble d’un tout fortement stylisé et délibérément médiatisé constitué de la littérature culinaire. Pour ce faire, cet article identifie et présente les deux principales stratégies rhétoriques du carnet de recette, c’est-à-dire le témoignage et la localisation, y compris l’ironie qui leur est inhérente, en plus de porter une attention particulière aux éditions canadiennes des carnets de recettes Knox et Davis Gelatine. Contact and SettlementThe first Canadian cookbooks emerged as guide-books for newly arrived Canadians during the mid-19th century—the best known being Catharine Parr Traill’s Female Emigrant’s Guide (1854) and A.B. of Grimsby’s Frugal Housewife’s Manual (1840), as well as La cuisinière canadienne (1840) and La nouvelle cuisinière canadienne (1850-55).ConsolidationDuring the last decades of the 19th century, cookbooks served to consolidate knowledge "@fre
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".