MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7103235145

Chew

2012· article· W7103235145 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly Commons (University of the Pacific) · 2012
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCulinary Culture and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTasteMarketing buzzChewing gumSeal (emblem)Areca
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.162 · 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