Grocery lists: connecting family, household and grocery store
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to investigate grocery list use in the lives of participant families in a study on decision making about food choices and eating practices. Design/methodology/approach A total of 46 families from three ethno‐cultural groups living in two regions in Canada participated in the study: in British Columbia, 12 Punjabi Canadian and 11 European Canadian families; in Nova Scotia, 13 African Canadian and ten European Canadian families. In each family, at least three individuals over the age of 13 years, one of whom was a woman between the ages of 25 and 55 years, were interviewed. Researchers participated in a meal and accompanied each family on a grocery trip. Findings Most family members contributed to a grocery list. The shopper(s) in the family may take the written list with them, have the list in memory, use a combination of both memory and written list, or shop without a list. Finds the articulation of taken‐for‐granted, intersecting knowledge about family, household and grocery store, necessary to the compilation of a list, were largely unseen, unrecognised, and undervalued. Originality/value Studies on grocery lists have focused on who uses lists, how they are used, and what their use says about consumers. In the literature, non‐list use is conflated with the absence of a tangible grocery list. Shows that lack of a tangible list does not mean absence of a list in all cases. Further, extends and contextualises existing literature, showing that grocery list compilation relies upon interrelated knowledge of family, household and store.
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".