‘Entomophagy’: an evolving terminology in need of review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing interest in insects as human food in academia, food and agricultural industries, public institutions and the public at large. Yet many of the words and concepts used to describe these organisms and the human practices surrounding them are still rudimentary, compared to the diversity of the organisms themselves and the existing complexity and rapid evolution of the practices they aim to describe. The goals of this paper are to: (1) show how the roots of the term ‘entomophagy’ and its uses have evolved over time; (2) illustrate some of the term’s problems that necessitate its review; and (3) offer recommendations for use of the term in future research and other practice. Our paper offers a brief historical review of insect eating as described by certain Western cultural sources, explores some of the taxonomic ambiguities and challenges surrounding the category ‘insects’, and ultimately argues for more precise and contextual terminology in this both richly traditional and rapidly developing field.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".