<i>Collective Kitchens in Canada:</i> A Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Collective kitchens are community-based cooking programs in which small groups of people cook large quantities of food. They have developed over the past 20 years, and hundreds of groups have been formed across the country. However, collective kitchens described in the literature vary considerably in structure, purpose, and format. The purpose of this review is to synthesize research on this topic. METHODS: Articles and theses were collected through searches of major databases, and synthesized to improve understanding of current information, and of continuing gaps in the knowledge of collective kitchens in Canada. RESULTS: The limited published research on collective kitchens suggests that social and learning benefits are associated with participation. Some indication exists that participants also find the food cooked to be high quality, culturally acceptable, and acquired in a manner that maintains personal dignity. Whether collective kitchens have an impact on food resources as a whole is unclear, as research has been limited in scale. CONCLUSIONS: The role of collective kitchens in community building and empowering participants often is noted, and bears further investigation. Dietitians and nutritionists have a unique opportunity to facilitate the health promotion and food security benefits of collective kitchens.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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 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".