Spice, culinary tourism, and expressions of whiteness in London, England and Nashville, \nTennessee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using curry in East London in the United Kingdom and hot chicken in Nashville, Tennessee as \ncase studies, this dissertation explores how ideas of spice and heat in “ethnic” foodways become \nlinked to conceptions of authenticity and exoticness within the context of culinary tourism. \nDrawing on scholarship of folk narrative, culinary tourism, critical whiteness studies, and \nvernacular rhetoric, among others, I investigate the ways in which the concept of spice is used \nrhetorically in ongoing conversations about links between “ethnic” foods and cultural \nappropriation, identity invention, and representation from both local and touristic perspectives. I \nhave concentrated mainly on how specifically white racial identities are expressed through the \nconsumption of spicy food within the context of culinary tourism, in which “ethnic” foods are a \nprimary attraction and are often understood to be non-white. This investigation includes \nhistorical context on both curry in east London and hot chicken in Nashville, interviews with \nlocals, culinary tourists, and tourism professionals, participant observation on culinary tours in \neast London, and analyses of online restaurant reviews in each location. An analysis of these \ncollected materials reveals that consumers in both locations share a frontier orientation towards \nthe act of consuming spicy foods that utilizes aspects of the white racial frame (Feagin 2013), \nand consumers use the concept of spice to signify that they have had an experience that is \nsufficiently or insufficiently exotic. In both locations, the concept of spice also opens up \nopportunities for individuals (both locals and tourists) to push back against master narratives \ncreated by tourism agencies and local governments that oversimplify their lived experiences and \nunderstandings of history.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".