MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325983855 · doi:10.1177/1469540513509642

Onerous consumption: The alternative hedonism of off-grid domestic water use

2013· article· en· W2325983855 on OpenAlexaff
Phillip Vannini, Jonathan Taggart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Culture · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)HedonismResource (disambiguation)Environmental economicsSustainable consumptionValue (mathematics)Water conservationWater consumptionBusinessNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningSustainabilitySociologyWater resourcesEconomicsWater resource managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceSocial scienceEcologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the contemporary, industrialized, urban world practices of domestic water usage typically transcend the physical boundaries of the home as indoor plumbing connects with municipal sewer lines and water mains. These infrastructural connections sever the sites of individual water consumption from the sites of its collection, storage, purification, and distribution. But what happens when individual homeowners become self-sufficient for gathering, conserving, and recycling water? Drawing from ethnographic research conducted amidst off-grid homeowners this paper examines how practices of domestic water conservation and usage unfold when individuals become self-sufficient for water. We find that off-grid homeowners engage in what we call “onerous consumption”—a type of alternatively hedonistic consumption characterized by burdensome involvement in the gathering, conserving, channeling, utilization, and disposal of resources. We argue that “onerous consumption” results in a profound awareness of resource utilization and consequently leads to greater resource conservation. We reflect on the value of the concept of onerous consumption for research and theorizing on sustainable and ethical consumption.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer CultureSame topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207