MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992107553 · doi:10.7202/039513ar

“All Kinds of Dirty”: Supermarkets, Markets, and Shifting Cultures of Clean

2010· article· en· W1992107553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexia Moyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCuizine The Journal of Canadian Food Cultures · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCulinary Culture and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirtSOAPSloganThe ImaginaryBusinessAdvertisingToiletCommerceComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceWaste managementWorld Wide WebLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The makers of CLR (the Calcium, Lime, Rust, cleaning product) assure us that there are “all kinds of dirty, one kind of clean.” One can feel confident that soap scum buildup and toilet bowl stains in the bathroom as well as the grease splatters and dried-on tomato sauce in the kitchen can be wiped away with the help of one yellow bottle. The pithy slogan asks us to be preoccupied by dirty in all its forms, without taking into account the many discourses of clean. This article concerns itself with the cult of “cleanness” and the ways in which it has taken hold of the imaginary when it comes to our bodies, the things we put into them, and the spaces we make use of and/or inhabit. I make particular reference here to the spaces in which we buy food, exploring various implications of the staging process enacted in the processing and display of foodstuffs. I set out to examine the ways in which clean is implemented and interpreted by and within two major sites of food shopping: the supermarket and the market.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0260.056
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCuizine The Journal of Canadian Food CulturesSame topicCulinary Culture and TourismFrench-language works237,207