MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088453805 · doi:10.2993/0278-0771-40.3.305

“That Was Our Candy!”: Sweet Foods in Indigenous Peoples' Traditional Diets in Northwestern North America

2020· article· en· W3088453805 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ethnobiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSweetnessSugarTraditional knowledgeTasteGeographySweet tasteWhite (mutation)Food scienceTraditional medicineBiologyMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At least 50 different plant foods in Indigenous Peoples' traditional diets in northwestern North America—including berries, root vegetables, greens, and tree sap and inner bark—are known for their sweet taste. Some were, and are, appreciated as confections themselves and others were used to sweeten foods and medicinal preparations. These sweet foods were remembered fondly by many elders from childhood times. However, many of these original sweet foods are no longer widely consumed, having been largely replaced by imported molasses, brown sugar, white sugar, syrup, and honey, which were readily incorporated into Indigenous Peoples' food systems following their introduction by Europeans in the past couple of centuries. This shift in use of sweeteners—as well as the adoption of wheat flour, and other introduced and refined carbohydrate foods—has had both positive and negative implications for First Nations' health and well-being. Today, Indigenous cultural revitalization movements in northwestern North America are drawing on the elders' knowledge and memories of their healthy, time-honored foods to recreate and celebrate ancestral dishes, especially those fondl remembered for their sweetness

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it