

This page looks like it has some reports similar to what you’re describing. Especially “NOAA’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE ECONOMY”. If that’s not it, let me know and I’ll keep looking.
This page looks like it has some reports similar to what you’re describing. Especially “NOAA’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE ECONOMY”. If that’s not it, let me know and I’ll keep looking.
The authors of salad theory actually discuss their objections to cube rule.
The cuberule theory is amusing, but tragically inconsistent. It also performs poorly against Occam’s razor (it has eight rules for categorizing food into different sections). The choice of a cube as opposed to other geometric shapes appears to be entirely arbitrary. Each category both omits common foods colloquially considered to be members of it, while including many foods that colloquially are not in it.
Cuberule food categories are extremely unstable. While amusing, we find it particularly objectionable that merely slicing or biting into a food changes its nature according to cuberule (a calzone is a calzone, but a calzone with a bite taken out of it is a bread bowl). The same applies to a burrito (calzone when fully folded, bread bowl when bitten into). Notably, a burrito with a significant quantity of carbs mixed in on the interior (e.g. burritos often contain rice) would actually be categorized as toast, which is peculiar.
By category:
Our position is that unintuitive inclusions are acceptable so long as there are no unintuitive exclusions. But when you have both, it’s solid evidence that your rule is wrong.
A fan of Adam Curtis, I see.