MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1504465354 · doi:10.2752/175174408x347874

The Cuisine of the Tundra

2008· article· en· W1504465354 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rhona Richman Kenneally

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Culture & Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCulinary Culture and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupNational consciousnessPavilionNarrativeDiversity (politics)ConsciousnessConceptualizationNational identityExhibitionHistorySociologyMedia studiesGender studiesEthnologyAestheticsAnthropologyPolitical scienceArtArt historyArchaeologyLawLiteraturePsychologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the long decade of the 1960s, Canadian cultural icons were sought as a means of crystallizing a cohesive national identity. At Expo 67, Canada's centenary celebration in Montreal, the Canada Pavilion—the principal display area of the host country—was uniquely positioned to frame the idea of “unity and diversity” among the nation's subcultures, and its two restaurants can be interrogated as displaying what may be described as a national culinary narrative. The goal of this paper is to investigate how this conceptualization of a Canadian cuisine was an inclusive endeavor accommodating dishes and practices derived from the diverse ethnicities of the country; from the incorporation of “modern” practices related to food and eating; and from the legacy of Canadian history. At a regional scale, restaurants in the pavilions of Ontario, the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec, reveal similar themes. In this way, mid-twentieth century Canadian food culture can be demonstrated as resonating with wider manifestations of national consciousness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Culture & SocietySame topicCulinary Culture and TourismFrench-language works237,207