MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408805848 · doi:10.1163/15685306-bja10242

Devouring Relationalities: Reflections on Food, Intimacies, and Multispecies Ethnography

2025· article· en· W4408805848 on OpenAlexaff
Noha Fikry

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety and Animals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustenanceEthnographyParticipant observationSensibilitySociologyGender studiesAnthropologyEcologyBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Drawing on one year of fieldwork in Egypt, this research explores rooftop rearing practices among lower-middle class families in Egypt. Lacking access to trusted meat proteins, many families raise nonhuman animals, including chickens, goats, and sheep, for nutritional sustenance. Nurtured with love and nourished with household leftovers among other ingredients, rooftop animals are valued for their carefully controlled gastronomic histories. Drawing on zafara as a gastronomic sensibility to differentiate between rooftop-reared animals and store-bought ones, I argue that eating with nonhuman animals – through feeding rooftop animals household leftovers and foods that families eat everyday – provides a methodological opportunity to conduct nuanced participant observation and speak to some of the challenges in multispecies ethnography. Reflecting on fieldwork meals and scholarly discussions in multispecies ethnography, this is an invitation to take eating seriously, as one way through which the human-nonhuman boundary can be revisited and further complicated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0260.062
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0030.005
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety and AnimalsSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207