Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to explore parents' and teens' perspectives on the significance of being able to cook. Design/methodology/approach In this qualitative study, 22 families participated in in‐depth interviews that explored their perspectives on food in the family and the significance of being able to cook. The sample was socio‐economically diverse and drew from one urban and one rural community in British Columbia, Canada. Findings The main themes from participants' descriptions of the significance of home cooking were that home cooking gave families control over their food supply, helped them to connect to others, enabled them to explore their own and others' food cultures and, in the case of teens, become more independent. Research limitations/implications The paper shows that the familial motivations for home cooking go beyond concerns for health or home economy and would benefit from further exploration. Practical implications For food producers and retailers, cooking instructors, dieticians, food scholars and writers, understanding familial motivations for home cooking provides the opportunity to better target family cooks with food products or services, and to encourage increased home cooking as a means to promote healthier, more sustainable diets and socially rich family food practices. Originality/value A perceived broad‐based decline in home cooking has received a great deal of attention in the UK and elsewhere. In contrast, this paper describes how participating families really do see value in home cooking—though they place as much emphasis on social, cultural and personal motivations as they do nutritional health.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".