Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a wine term terroir dates from the glorious years of 14th century wine-making in Burgundy, France. The term was first applied to certain top-quality wine-producing properties along the Cote d'Or, Burgundy. Outside France terroir is being applied more loosely, to properties producing less than top-quality wines, not the original purpose of the term. Terroir recognizes many of the physical elements of wine-making, including good drainage,soil structure, nature of clays, and the existence and interaction of chemical compounds such as calcium carbonate, iron, magnesium, and others in an almost mysterious alchemy in the wine-growing process. Although the physical and chemical interactions that affect the growing of wine are not well understood, the spread of the term terroir is encouraging better use of geology, soil, climate, and culture in producing better wines. Resume Dans son acception vinicole, le mot terroir date des annees glorieuses de la culture du vin au 14 e siecle, le long de la cote d'Or de Bourgogne en France, Ce terme a d'abord ete utilise pour designer certaines proprietes vinicoles essentielles a production des meilleurs vins de la cote d'Or de Bourgogne. Hors France, le mot terroir est utilise plus librement et pour des vins de qualite moindre que superieure, contrairement a l'intention originale. Le mot terroir implique l'existence de nombreux facteurs physiques dans la production du vin, dont un bon drainage, une structure de sol, la nature des argiles, et l'existence de composes chimiques tels le carbonate de calcium, le fer, le magnesium, etc ., qui interagissent selon un procede extremement complexe. Bien que les interactions physiques et chimiques de la production de vin ne soient pas bien comprises, l'usage du mot terroir pousse a un meilleur usage des connaissances geologiques, pedologiques, climatiques et des pratiques culturales dans la production vinicole.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".