MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327091704 · doi:10.1177/0957155815571522

How ‘natives’ ate at colonial exhibitions in 1889, 1900 and 1931

2015· article· en· W2327091704 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Cultural Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionColonialismIdeologyNarrativePoliticsElement (criminal law)HistoryVisual artsMedia studiesSociologyArtGender studiesPolitical scienceLawLiteratureArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A lot has been written on the cultural and ideological implications of French ‘human zoos’ and the ‘natives’ from the French colonies who were displayed in colonial exhibitions. Not much has been said, however, about what and how those ‘natives’ ate and drank as they were transported to Paris for the international exhibitions. In this article, I would like to draw attention to the politics of food consumption at the Paris colonial expositions of 1889, 1900 and 1931. Shared meals and official banquets were performances of colonial integration, and hygiene and food safety measures in connection with what the ‘natives’ ate and drank could be interpreted as part of the mission civilisatrice. However, I also want to show that food – exotic food – can also be an unruly object on the pacified space of the international exhibition: a generator of disgust or revulsion that may be a dissonant element within the smooth narratives of French colonialism.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.175 · 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