“I’m wondering about the society of beetles that I have”: Entomophagy, relationality, and food system transitions at the household-level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insects are a potential sustainable protein source. To date, scholarship regarding insect consumption in countries without a major history of it has most often focused on consumer acceptance or critically reflected on the industrialized nature of insect farms and processing firms. This article presents the empirical findings of a pilot project that supported seven individuals with no previous experience of insect farming to safely produce mealworms for consumption at home. It explores how raising mealworms affected their confidence and willingness to eat them, their attentiveness and care toward the mealworms, as well as the potential and/or desirability for such production systems to scale up. Household-level production of insects and worms affords a unique opportunity to explore these considerations, as it is both an example of an alternative food practice, as well as an accessible opportunity for individuals to interact with a form of livestock. The research brings together literature from more-than-human geographies and sustainability transitions. It contributes to debates regarding the potential to scale up sustainability-related experiments and considers how the handling of mealworms builds relationships between producers and their mini-livestock.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".