MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328012722 · doi:10.47761/494a02f6.70c98e6b

Book Review: Culinary Art and Anthropology

2008· article· en· W4328012722 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Vallianatos

Bibliographic record

VenueInVisible Culture · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCulinary Culture and Tourism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropologyArtSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Envisioning salsa made with spicy chilies makes my mouth water.So it was with some excitement to me that Joy Adapon, in her book Culinary Art and Anthropology, included recipes at the end of almost every chapter.I began with trying the tomato salsa recipe, playing with the flavors, and in the process embodying and digesting Adapon's thesis and ideas that were based on 24 months of fieldwork in Milpa Alta, the smallest municipality of Mexico City.Adapon presents us with a unique contribution to anthropological food studies through her utilization of Alfred Gell's ideas of art as a technical practice-a system of actions embedded in a dynamic social matrix or a network of intentionalities. 2n this framework, cooking is a creative process that requires technical expertise; such skill is not unique to trained chefs, Adapon argues, but can be found in the everyday culinary traditions of Mexican households."Good" food, which is food with sazn (i.e. made with love), is an art form produced on a daily basis.The cook as artist creatively plays with and builds upon traditional recipes, but modifies them according to the dictates of personal taste, pragmatics (i.e.availability of particular food items), and intended recipient(s).Central to Gell's theory is both artists' and art's agency in the production of social relations.In Adapon's application of Gell, the cook is the artist, and conveys social meanings through the production of flavorful

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInVisible CultureSame topicCulinary Culture and TourismFrench-language works237,207