Getting Back to the Garden: Reflections on Gendered Behaviours in Home Gardening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing interest amongst scholars in people’s gardening behaviours related to food production. This development coincides with society’s increased interest in consuming and producing food in sustainable ways. Local food movements, which include urban agriculture and home gardening, have increased in popularity in several countries, especially during the last decade. Academics from a variety of disciplines have been starting to ask questions: Why are people gardening? How is gardening associated with one’s identity? What motivates people to adopt environmental gardening practices? Some researchers suggest that gardening research could benefit from gender analysis. This paper examines some of the literature in this growing field of inquiry and finds current gardening research often lacks critical gender analysis, thus failing to problematize gardening behaviours and attitudes. It maintains that this development is curious in light of compelling evidence that shows differences in the gardening behaviours of men and women. It proposes that along with Bhatti’s and Church’s theory of gardening spaces as mirrors for changing gender relations, Allen’s and Sachs’s feminist theoretical approach to explore the sociocultural domain of women’s relationship to food could be used to conduct gendered gardening research related to food. This discussion concludes that gender analysis is critical to exploring gardening as a research topic and that understanding women’s role in gardening for food production will be especially critical in future research as climate change impacts necessitate different food production and consumption behaviours.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".