MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082066168 · doi:10.1080/07409710902925896

Farmwomen's Discourses on Family Food Provisioning: Gender, Healthism, and Risk Avoidance

2009· article· en· W2082066168 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lynn McIntyre, Patricia Thille, Krista Rondeau

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Foodways · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvisioningPsychologyEnvironmental healthBusinessMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the dominant discourses utilized by 21 farmwomen with children in three regions of Canada in relation to their talk of household food provisioning. We define food provisioning as the acquisition, preparation, and consumption of food that draws on personal, family, and community resources and supports. Farmwomen expressed their position as gatekeeper of the family meal through traditional gender role discourses. Feeding their families was constructed as a task that determined the health of their family members; it reflects the dominance of a healthism discourse wherein being "healthy" is the desired end that is constructed to be under the control of the individual (mother/wife). Farmwomen's description of farming practices relied heavily on the dominant discourse of food safety/risk avoidance, which they used to justify a protectionist orientation to agriculture. Although uniquely positioned to express a dual consumer/producer role, farmwomen instead spoke of an individualistic orientation to health as consumers, and employed system-oriented discourses of the food safety system as producers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and FoodwaysSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207