Under the Kitchen Surface: Domestic Products and Conflicting Constructions of Home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines how the product world around domestic cleanliness plays with the dual construction of the home as safe and dangerous. By participating in this construction, cleaning products engage with a salient concern in domestic life—how to achieve and maintain a safe domestic environment. We have investigated the discursive commentary on domestic cleanliness and safety in one domestic advice manual: Good Housekeeping magazine, over the period 1951–2001. This investigation has also provided insights into the discursive character of cleaning products. We have been interested in how product discourse moves the home discursively from exhibiting dangerous tendencies towards the attainment of safety through the utilization of products. However, reading product narratives over the late modern period makes it apparent that competition and the need for product innovation in an otherwise difficult market has created complexities that confront the domestic sphere with more dangers. We draw out the consequences of our findings and reflect on how this informs the assertion made by Ger and Yenicioglu (2004) about the connections between contemporary consumer culture, cleanliness and the domestic safe haven.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".