“Kitchen crafters”: Canning, feminism, and the value of ‘women’s work’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the enthusiasm and motivations for home canning in the twenty-first century within the context of the DIY movement of the 1990s and the current urban homesteading movement. Using interdisciplinary methodological approaches, including feminist history, feminist auto/biography, and autoethnography, the author provides historical background on home canning and homesteading in Canada and the United States; she also uses her own lived experiences of canning and gardening while pursing an MA in Gender Studies to analyze choice feminism. This thesis examines criticisms of the current interest in home canning by journalists, and the reactions of canning/urban homesteading bloggers to those articles. Ultimately this thesis argues that canning is a valuable skill and that feminism and foodwork are not incompatible; furthermore, blogging about canning and urban homesteading is breaking down the divide between the public and private spheres by providing an income for some bloggers through advertising and book deals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".