Review: <i>The Political Relevance of Food Media and Journalism: Beyond Reviews and Recipes</i>, edited by Elizabeth Fakazis and Elfriede Fürsich
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| February 01 2024 Review: The Political Relevance of Food Media and Journalism: Beyond Reviews and Recipes, edited by Elizabeth Fakazis and Elfriede Fürsich The Political Relevance of Food Media and Journalism: Beyond Reviews and Recipes, Edited by Elizabeth Fakazis and Elfriede Fürsich, London & New York: Routledge, 2023 254 pp. $160.00 (hardcover); $44.95 (paper); (eBook) Emily Goodwin Emily Goodwin McMaster University Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Gastronomica (2024) 24 (1): 80–81. https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2024.24.1.80 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Emily Goodwin; Review: The Political Relevance of Food Media and Journalism: Beyond Reviews and Recipes, edited by Elizabeth Fakazis and Elfriede Fürsich. Gastronomica 1 February 2024; 24 (1): 80–81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2024.24.1.80 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentGastronomica Search To understand the focus and import of The Political Relevance of Food Media and Journalism: Beyond Reviews and Recipes, consider your inbox. Extrapolating from my own email habits, one might find a culinary newsletter with food waste-reducing recipes; a local newspaper's look at the experiences of migrant agricultural workers; or countless other examples of food-based reportage, from investigative pieces in flagship publications to personal essays delivered via Substack. As editors Elizabeth Fakazis and Elfriede Fürsich note, recent years have witnessed a boom in journalism and media practices that "activate the potential for stories about food to engage with important social, political, and cultural issues" (p. 2). In addition to positioning such materials as productive scenes of academic inquiry, this volume constitutes a valuable resource for critically assessing food-focused public discourse, and for querying, sustaining, or rerouting journalism's capacity to foster collective social change and build more equitable food futures.... You do not currently have access to this content.
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 | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.069 |
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".