Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human proclivity to chew is as instinctively hard wired as sucking and stays with us throughout our lives. We chew not only daily in the act of eating, but as an outlet for pent up anxiety, a displacement for our aggressive urges, or as a way to simply mitigate boredom. People grind their teeth in sleep or chew the insides of their cheeks, but most peoples through history have also found plant materials to satisfy the urge to chew, often with pharmaceutical or breath-freshening properties. The very word masticate derives from the mastic tree, native to Chios, whose resiny-flavored gum the ancient Greeks chewed and still do to this day. American chicle is the origin of the modern form of chewing gum, and lends its name to the Chiclets brand, though most is now made of synthetic ingredients and rubber. Native Americans in what is now Maine and Canada chewed spruce gum, a source of vitamin C, coincidentally, preventing scurvy. Throughout the world we find comparable substances chewed for their mildly stimulant effects. Coca leaves activated with lime (calcium carbonate) prevent altitude sickness and stave off hunger in the Andes. Qat in Somalia and East Africa, a green leaf chewed communally by men and the source of much controversy among these communities, reputedly has similar mind-altering properties. And no one doubts the nicotine buzz one gets from a plug of chewing tobacco or the refreshing taste of betel nuts, popular in South East Asia, not to mention cola nuts in Africa, slivers of which are shared with visitors. The latter carry a good dose of natural caffeine. This paper will explore the activity of chewing from a psychological, sociological and pharmaceutical perspective. Who chews, why and with whom? And what specific social connotations does it carry? When does it become déclassé? And when do corporations capitalize on specific types of gums–think of sugar free gum or nicorette. The focus of this paper will be upon the handful of the plants most commonly chewed throughout the world and their historical uses. It will question why humans have always had the need to chew and why it is in many ways essential to our happiness and well-being, especially between meals. It will be suggested that the modern meal pattern essentially upsets what was in evolutionary terms useful for us though most of our existence as hunters and gatherers–constant munching on leaves, bark and anything we could get our teeth around. It is only in modern civilized contexts that we end up inventing other more or less socially acceptable forms of chewing–though spitting, the logical adjunct of chewing has often been attacked precisely because it is deemed anti-social.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".