Recipes as Culinary Communication in a Canadian Art Museum: Lobster Soufflé, Beef Stroganoff, and the Tensions of Gourmet Cooking in the 1960s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes that recipes are a form of culinary communication, suggesting that a recipe's biography is one of communicative moments, negotiations, and multiple voices. This framework is applied to The Art of Cooking, a series of culinary demonstrations organized by the Women's Committee at the Art Gallery of Toronto in the 1960s. The events, featuring chefs such as James Beard and Dione Lucas, were organized around the logics of gourmet cooking but departed from it when faced with the realities of women's daily lives. The research is based on archival documents and media coverage of these very popular events, which offer an opportunity to explore the mythologies and narratives about gourmet cooking in the 1960s. This article argues that communications about a recipe are part of the recipe's evolving biography and need to be analyzed alongside ingredients, instructions, makers, and users. In addition, the article advocates for the inclusion of women's committees’ histories to those of art museums in North America.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".