"Nurturing Individuals, Kinship, and Culture: Kitchens as Social Spaces in Wayson Choy’s The Jade Peony and Ruby Slipperjack’s Silent Words"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing a strong sense of community and preserving cultural identity are key components of Chinese Canadian and Indigenous literatures; this shared identity provides a sense of ethnic and cultural solidarity for so-called “visible minorities” in Canada, a key concern in both Wayson Choy’s novel The Jade Peony and Ruby Slipperjack’s novel Silent Words. In these novels the locus of culture becomes the kitchen or the campfire, sites where culture is made tangible through the preparation and consumption of traditional cuisine. In The Jade Peony, the Chen family kitchen is a social space where three generations of Chinese Canadians reinforce their kinship ties by sharing meals and other elements of Chinese culture. Kitchens and campfires function similarly in Silent Words: Danny connects with other Ojibwa people in these sites, strengthening his cultural identity and alleviating his isolation while simultaneously learning traditional methods of subsistence hunting and food preparation. By comparing passages from Choy’s The Jade Peony and Slipperjack’s Silent Words, it is shown that kitchens and campfires are both sites of strengthened kinship connections and also function as vehicles for the preservation of culture through the preparation and consumption of traditional meals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".