Whose ‘everyday mundane’? The influence of class and privilege in the creation of food waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are a growing number of studies focusing on household food waste in the Global North. However, very little is known empirically about the impacts that class and privilege have upon food wasting practices in the Global South. According to Evans (2014), the passage of food into waste occurs more or less due to mundane household activities. This study aims to apply Evans' finding while illustrating the difficulty in defining the concept of mundane with respect to intergenerational and interclass households. Findings from studies on household food waste in developed countries are not necessarily reflective of several factors that are found within households in developing countries including but not limited to: the family structure, the kinship system, and extreme income disparity. Relatively little is known about food waste in developing countries. This paper argues that due to the corporatisation of the food provisioning landscape, along with the forces of globalisation and urbanisation in the Global South, food waste research is required in developing countries. By drawing upon an immersed field research of 21 upper (n=7), middle (n=7) and lower (n=7) income households as well as 12 key informant interviews, this paper explores the diversity of consumption and food wasting patterns occurring within households of varying incomes and sizes in urban Indonesia, raising the issue of privilege in the creation of food waste. In a developing country context, understanding the inter-class dynamic of the 'household' and the fluid notion of who belongs in a 'household' is crucial to understanding the phenomenon of food waste in Indonesia. This paper employs two theoretical frameworks namely, practice theory and a waste regime framework to analyse the social and material relations that influence food provisioning and resulting food wasting practices in Indonesia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".