You are what you eat: Exploring the relationship between women, food, and incarceration
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on Thomas Ugelvik’s (2011) work, this article seeks to capture the food-related experiences and challenges faced by provincially and federally incarcerated women in Canada. This research shows that criminalized women engage with food in different ways than Ugelvik’s sample of men did while in prison. We consider how prison fare operates as a form of status degradation and how the less eligibility principle allows for incarcerated populations to be fed low-quality foods. This is followed by a discussion of how the ways in which women share and trade food demonstrates an ethic of care and a strategy of coping and resistance. Mealtime resistance via the storing, sharing, and trading of food exemplifies how women negotiate power in the carceral context; this use of individual agency, albeit limited, fosters togetherness and solidarity, making prison time temporarily more comfortable and manageable. By showcasing participants’ first-hand accounts of prison fare, we explore how women’s relationships with food shape their material experiences of incarceration.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it