MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W819662834

COOKING UP A NATION: PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH COOKERY, 1830-1930

2015· dissertation· en· W819662834 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lauren Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of LeedsDanish Cancer Society Research CenterOxford Brookes UniversityMcMaster University
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyFood scienceMathematics educationChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation explores the origin of the idea that English food is inherently “bad” and demonstrates that this perception developed in the mid-nineteenth century. While it is commonly assumed that the poor quality of English cookery developed after the Second World War, this dissertation demonstrates that English cookery was perceived poorly beginning in the nineteenth century. This dissertation brings together an analysis of Victorian values, gender, food adulteration, food technologies, and nostalgia to establish how the English criticized themselves and created the belief that English cookery is “bad.” By examining cookbooks and newspaper articles, this investigation illustrates how the English criticized their own cooking and developed a sense of anxiety about their perceived flawed cookery. In the nineteenth century, cookery was evaluated based on emerging Victorian moral values rather than taste. The emphasis on being economical, efficient, and clean meant that traditional English dishes such as roast beef and plum pudding were no longer celebrated, but instead, considered wasteful and monotonous. Increasing imports through advances in shipping, refrigeration, and canning decreased the production of English goods at home. The adaptation and absorption of new imported ingredients and dishes into English cookbooks created a cosmopolitan cookery by the twentieth century, but, at the same time, deepened confusion over what an English food identity was. By studying cookbooks, this dissertation uses an untapped resource to explore the perception of English cookery. Cookbooks, especially mass publications, helped further the belief that English cookery was wasteful and unclean, and prescribed countless remedies for readers. Cookbooks also offered another perspective for exploring gender and cookery, as middle class women found themselves multitasking as housewives, educators, and cooks. More than just a collection of recipes, cookbooks provide historians with windows to view ideas of food identity, community, and culture.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)→Same topicAustralian History and Society→French-language works237,207→