Analyzing Socioeconomic Status through Culinary Ingredients: A Large-Scale Study of Pita and Pizza Dishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates whether the ingredients listed on restaurant menus can provide insights into a city’s socioeconomic status. Using data from an online food delivery system, the study compares menu items with local education rates and rental prices. A machine learning model is developed to predict menu prices based on ingredients and socioeconomic factors. An efficiency metric is proposed to cluster restaurants to address autocorrelation, comparing ingredient averages to socioeconomic indicators. The analysis focuses on hundreds of menus, specifically examining pizza and Turkish pita in Ankara, Türkiye. The results indicate that including nearby rental prices significantly improves the accuracy of predicting menu prices, especially for pizza. The study also notes that wealthier areas tend to feature menus with more unique or expensive ingredients, particularly in the case of pizza, aligning with previous research on eating habits and income levels. Key contributions of this research include a comprehensive examination of restaurant menus, insights into how menus vary based on location and cuisine, and the development of Turkish-English word lists for pita and pizza menu items. Our datasets are also shared. This methodology aids in understanding local taste preferences and provides valuable information for strategic decisions regarding restaurant location and menu planning.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".