It's About Time: A Case Study of Acquiring, Producing, and Promoting a Timely Book from an Independent Canadian Publisher
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TouchWood Editions published The Waste Not, Want Not Cookbook by Cinda Chavich on May 1, 2015. A traditional cookbook teeming with advice for individuals looking to reduce food waste in the kitchen, it was released at a time when excessive food waste was the focus of many media reports across North America. This report discusses the trajectory of the cookbook from the time of the author’s proposal in March 2014 to eight months after its publication in December 2015. In addition to discussing the acquisition and production stages of the book, it also provides snapshots of the media landscape at three separate junctures in the timeline to demonstrate the continuing trend of food waste coverage. Chiefly, it focuses on what was done, what could have been done, and what can still be done to promote a cookbook that was released into highly favourable media conditions by an independent Canadian publisher.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".