The Making and Breaking of Food Preservation Practices in a Rural Albertan Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Amid growing concerns over nutrition, food safety, and the relationship between health and environment, anxiety about the general deskilling around food‐related activities has garnered significant public interest and academic inquiry. Mainstream agriculture commodity and retail food chains are failing to meet the concerns citizens are expressing about their food. This has contributed to a relearning of skills of procuring, preparing, and preserving food. This qualitative study looks at the practice of home preserving in a rural Albertan community through a social practice theory framework. I test two premises set out by Shove, Pantzar and Watson (2012): First, social practices consist of three elements (materials, competencies, and meanings) that are integrated when practices are enacted; second, that practices emerge, persist, and disappear as links among these defining elements are made and broken. I demonstrate how the integration of the elements enabled canning as a practice to flourish during a certain period. I then explore how the disintegration of the elements contributed to the decline of the same practice in later years. By examining the connections and breakages in the links between materials, meanings, and competencies, I illustrate the essentiality of integration of elements in order for practices to exist.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".