MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1570626947 · doi:10.3138/cjh.50.1.177

<i>Food Will Win the War: The Politics, Culture, and Science of Food on Canada’s Home Front</i>, by Ian Mosby

2015· article· en· W1570626947 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHome frontPoliticsPolitical scienceSociologyMedia studiesLawSpanish Civil War

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food Will Win the War: The Politics, Culture, and Science of Food on Canada's Home Front, by Ian Mosby. Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press, 2014. xii, 268 pp. $99.00 US (cloth), $35.95 US (paper). Ian Mosby's detailed and important study adds to an expanding number of recently published works demonstrating the centrality of World War II to the formation of modern Canada. Mosby's book maps the increasing influence of nutritionists during the war, based upon what he portrays as an exaggerated belief in their ability to provide undisputable scientific assessments of what was missing from the diets of Canadians. The war brought quickly growing concerns over a crisis with malnutrition, as it was concluded that as many as sixty percent of Canadians lacked adequate nutrients in their daily diet. This was linked to high military rejection rates and lost production on the homefront. Providing adequate nutrition therefore became a patriotic necessity. Reflecting their stewardship over shopping and cooking, responsibility for ensuring healthy families fell to women. Propaganda emphasized that it was essential that women be educated on nutrition for the sake of the war effort and Canada's ability to thrive after the conflict. Mosby also demonstrates the centrality of food to the war effort through the government's implementation of mandatory price controls and coupon rationing. Contrary to the emphasis in recent historical accounts, he presents Canadians as fully backing such controls. This response was grounded not only in patriotism, but also scientific data on nutritional deficiencies among Canadians that these measures would fill by guaranteeing adequate food at a decent price. Mosby portrays women as critical to ensuring that such controls worked, namely through the checks they performed as part of the Consumers Branch of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board, and by volunteering with one of the hundreds of branches of Women's Regional Advisory Committees. Many such women became consumer activists, including after the war, initiating boycotts through the 100,000-strong Housewives Consumer Association against enterprises viewed as engaging in profiteering. Mosby shows Canadians as contributing to the war effort through the medium of food in several other ways. Although more symbolic than essential to food production and conservation, many households started Victory Gardens. While the physical nature of this work resulted in propaganda that highlighted male leadership, women, as managers of the kitchen, were portrayed as leaders when it came to salvaging fat and bones. The same was evident with respect to providing domestic comforts, namely food, to those in uniform at home and overseas, including POWs, through volunteerism that encompassed the mass production of care packages, running community canteens, and having servicemen join family diners. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.190 · 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