MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500106073 · doi:10.1108/ijcthr-12-2014-0100

“Back of house” – focused study on food waste in fine dining: the case of Delish restaurants

2015· article· en· W1500106073 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingProcurementHospitalityContext (archaeology)BusinessFocus groupFood wasteService (business)Exploratory researchHospitality industryOperations managementEngineeringSociologyTourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the key determinants of back-of-house-based food waste in food service outlets. This case study focuses on Delish restaurants, a well-known restaurant chain in Canada, and aims to provide a clear understanding of food service procurement, kitchen practices, cost management, risk mitigation, menu design and technical literacy needs in hospitality. Some recommendations for future studies are also provided. Design/methodology/approach – The authors chose an exploratory case study design to guide our investigation on restaurants and food waste, based on Yin’s (1994) argument that case studies are the preferred strategy when the “why” questions is being posed and when the focus is on a modern occurrence within a real-life context. Such a design is particularly appropriate for understanding the details and complexity of a phenomenon and its design (Stake, 1995). In this study, research data were collected through multiple points. A semi-structured questionnaire was designed and adopted to collect primary data. The objective of the empirical segment is not to test the applicability of the existing approaches, but rather to study conceptual nuances related to the presented model. A survey study was focused on formal interviews onsite, in two different food service facilities (Restaurant A and B). Findings – When considering food procurement, supplier relationships were found to not be significant for food waste prevention. Company-wide agreements with specific suppliers prevented individual chefs from creating alterations in their ordering to prevent waste. Order shorting was a somewhat common occurrence. However, most employees did not identify portion size as a large driver of waste. This conclusion conflicts somewhat with studies in this area (Kantor et al. , 1997). If there was waste on a plate, it is much more likely to be the starches, which are low-cost items as opposed to high-cost proteins. Research limitations/implications – This research has its limitations, which present opportunities for future research. First, this case study is based on two case studies which have their weaknesses, especially in the reliability of data collection. In future, even though both restaurants had access to an earlier version of this case, a more structured analysis with performance indicators related to food waste would contribute to the internal validity of the study. The external validity of the proposed back-of-house-based determinant framework would benefit from being empirically tested with a larger sample, as the author cannot imply that this study’s findings are transferable to other food service operations. Practical implications – From a managerial perspective, this study has merit. Arguably, the restaurant industry has a cumulative impact on the environment, economy and society as a whole. As more consumers in the Western world eat away from home, proper food management practices are desirable. Currently, few governments regulate or mandate measures to monitor restaurants’ sustainability claims and waste management. As consumer expectations change, the onus falls on food operations to validate and inform patrons on practices behind the scenes. Culinary kitchens are often not visible or accessible for some customers, or even obscure for others. Social implications – Strategies undertaken by management and chefs are reactive as opposed to proactive strategies. The reactive strategies are only able to identify waste a week after it has occurred through inventory checks. From this point, it may be impossible to identify the cause of the waste to prevent it from happening in the future. In addition, attribution to the cause may be laid on the incorrect individual, which will further exacerbate the social learning of the staff as a whole. Proactive strategies undertaken before waste occurs are more effective. Originality/value – It must be noted that most of the literature on food waste management in casual-dining restaurants does not cover the key challenges found in the food industry. Most noticeable in the review is that there are very few studies in the literature that include food waste management practices linked to distribution management. This area of interest within the hospitality industry has not been well-developed in recent years and requires more attention.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it