Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractAs the negative health, environmental and social consequences of the industrial food system are brought to light, convenience food options are being criticized and "re-engagement" with food celebrated. Indeed, there are many benefits when households are more involved in their own food provision, doing things such as growing food and cooking from scratch. However, calls for a return to more labor and time-intensive food practices often overlook the difficulties that food providers face in trying to manage both paid and unpaid work in the context of contemporary employment and household patterns. This paper brings light to these under-examined issues by putting the feminist concept of social reproduction into dialogue with the food literature. It is argued that significant and widespread changes in food provision at the household level cannot take place unless employment conditions and the gendered division of labor are addressed.Keywords: foodwork/cookinggender division of laborsocial reproductionconvenience foodslow foodwork-life balance Additional informationNotes on contributorsMichelle SzaboMichelle Szabo is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, Toronto. Her interests revolve around household food habits and the gender division of food work as they relate to wider issues of health, sustainability and equity in the food system. Her dissertation examines the motivations for and meanings of domestic cooking among involved male domestic cooks in Toronto. Faculty of Environmental Studies, HNES 109, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada (szabom@yorku.ca).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".