Tourism Toronto's "How to eat..." guides: a global city's map to culinary colonialism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By focusing on Toronto as a “global city” (Sassen, 1991), the main objective of this Major Research Paper is to examine the contradictory relationship between Toronto’s discourse of “food multiculturalism” (Flowers & Swan, 2012) and processes of “culinary colonialism” (Heldke, 2003). This paper will use Tourism Toronto’s “How To Eat...” guides as a case study of Toronto’s discourse of food multiculturalism. Through critical discourse analysis, this paper demonstrates how Toronto’s discourse of food multiculturalism depends on colonial assumptions that commodify its racialized immigrants and diaspora as the Other. Consequently, this paper finds that Toronto’s global city strategy is critically linked to culinary colonialism. Furthermore, this paper conceptually builds on culinary colonialism by emphasizing food adventuring as a performative act of the Other. Within this context, these guides also operate as an intimate map for individual eaters to perform ‘the Other’ through food. Key Words: Global city; Food Multiculturalism; Culinary Colonialism; Performance Theory; Critical Discourse Analysis
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".