Home › Research › Risk factors
Ruby’s Oyster Dressing, or Edible Nostalgia
Matthew Meduri. Gastronomica The Journal of Food and Culture, 2021-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The writers always focus on their experience as being the proper one, followed by two hundred and fifty words on regional terminology and technique, and then conclude with a wink, something along the lines of “no matter what you call it, we all can’t wait to plop a helping of grandma’s goodness onto our plates.” The arguments are clichéd, the pathos is equivalent to “I like the things I like because I like them,” and the reasoning reeks of a narcissism of small difference.But I digress.If we want to know whether stuffing and dressing are just colloquialisms or actually two different things, we can turn to the Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink (Smith 2007: 197) for a little clarification:Dressing came into use in the nineteenth century as a prim euphemism for [stuffing]…The verbs “to dress” and “to stuff” have historically connoted distinct culinary procedures—the one having to do with cleaning and preparing of the carcasses of fish or fowl and the other with the making of fillings of all sorts.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Meduri, M. (2021). Ruby’s Oyster Dressing, or Edible Nostalgia. Gastronomica The Journal of Food and Culture. https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2021.21.1.52
Vancouver
Meduri M. Ruby’s Oyster Dressing, or Edible Nostalgia. Gastronomica The Journal of Food and Culture. 2021. doi:10.1525/gfc.2021.21.1.52.
BibTeX
@article{meduri2021-32275572,
author = {Meduri, Matthew},
title = {{Ruby’s Oyster Dressing, or Edible Nostalgia}},
journal = {Gastronomica The Journal of Food and Culture},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1525/gfc.2021.21.1.52},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2021.21.1.52}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The writers always focus on their experience as being the proper one, followed by two hundred and fifty words on regional terminology and technique, and then conclude with a wink, something along the lines of “no matter what you call it, we all can’t wait to plop a helping of grandma’s goodness onto our plates.”
Why it matters
This essay is about the terms stuffing and dressing in American food writing and has no connection to Alzheimer's disease. It cannot inform any aspect of Alzheimer's treatment, cure, or prevention.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 24/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 93 points we could judge it on, which is 24 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Gastronomica The Journal of Food and Culture) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Gastronomica The Journal of Food and Culture: journal h-index 35 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 7 year(s) since 2021 |
| Impact for its field and year | 0 / 6 | Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Matthew Meduri holds only 3 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 0 institution(s) in 0 countries — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 93 | Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 93 points we could judge it on is 24 out of 100. |
| Total | 24 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also in Risk factors
356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.