Les Cuisines Collectives: Une Voie Vers La Promotion De La Santé Mentale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collective kitchens represent a relatively new social and community practice in the province of Quebec. They provide support that goes far beyond the food they supply, affecting the participants' life conditions and personal development. This qualitative study aimed to evaluate the effects that collective kitchens have on participants. We carried out semistructured interviews with a stratified sample of 25 people between the ages of 20 and 60, a majority of whom were single parents. These 20 women and 5 men were involved in 13 different groups for an average of 1 to 2 years. The results showed that the main reasons for participating in these groups were economic, nutritional, and psychosocial in nature. Prominent among the psychosocial reasons was a desire to overcome a feeling of isolation, which a majority of respondents perceived as one of the most disturbing features of their lives before they were involved in the collective kitchens. We identified 3 types of factors that influence the effects of the respondents' participation in collective kitchens: (a) factors related to the internal dynamics of each collective kitchen (their modes of functioning and organizational structure), (b) factors related to the personal situation of the participants and (c) factors related to the use of other services or to the participants' social involvement. The various effects differ not only in character (psychosocial, economic, nutritional, etc.) but also in the time they appeared in the participation process and in their direct or indirect links with participation in collective kitchens. It would be interesting in future research to evaluate whether the benefits of participation in collective kitchens identified in this study have a long-term impact on the lives of the people in these groups.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".