Biocultural Diversity, <i>Campesino</i> Kitchens, and Globalization: Ethnobiological Perspectives on Dietary Change in Southern Bolivia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Widespread reduction in traditional foods has been extensively documented around the world, despite a growing scholarship in ethnobiology and nutrition studies attesting to the value and importance of traditional food systems. A processual ethnobiology approach—one attuned to the historically situated nature of traditional ecological knowledge, and the influence and interplay of micro- and macro-level forces—may offer new insights into processes of dietary change and continuity. Using this perspective, I present a case study from Southern Bolivia on rural peoples' descriptions of how and why their foodways have changed over time, as well as how their traditional food system is being sustained. I draw on data gathered over 12 months through interviews, participation, participant observation, and document review. Animal protein and commercial crop production promotion and discourses disparaging traditional meals are some of the factors affecting availability, affordability, and acceptability of traditional foods. Nevertheless, there are also many examples of how local foods and recipes have been adapted, rather than abandoned, and of promising initiatives rebuilding the prestige and cultural acceptability of traditional foods. These findings suggest a more complex and nuanced process of dietary change than is often posited in the nutrition transition model. Place-specific, historically informed understandings of how attitudes, availability, and other factors have influenced local food systems are needed to develop policies and programs that effectively respond to locally identified concerns surrounding the continuity of traditional food use.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".