Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Western academic tradition, tangible cultural heritage (monuments, buildings, sites and material objects) has generally been considered as a privileged means of constructing places and territory, whereas intangible cultural heritage (oral traditions, arts, crafts, feasts, rituals, song, music, dance) have been associated with the identification of ethnic groups. This article aims to demonstrate that intangible cultural heritage can also be a powerful means of the construction of place, through a case study that shows how the consumption of home-grown agricultural products in Quebec transforms territories into places of heritage. This transformative process is accomplished, first, by the symbolic production and consumption of place. By clearly identifying the place of origin of the product on the label, in writing as well as in image, the act of eating homegrown products entails a displacement of territory from their place of production to their place of incorporation. The distant and the faraway are brought home and made familiar. To further reinforce the domestication of place, the consumer is invited to come and purchase the homegrown product at the place of production and to bring it back home with him. Second, these places areheritagitizedthrough the social production and consumption of time. Homegrown products are expressions of the continuity of place through the material conservation of food (dehydration, salting, freezing, etc.), the process of ageing itself and, more importantly, the transmission of their intangible qualities (traditional knowledge, transmission of receipts, preservation of taste). These practices become specific to a place to the point that they give the product a distinctive taste that is passed on from generation to generation. It is through taste that the memory of people and place is reactivated. The author of the article further suggests that it is these intangible elements which most efficiently and forcefully express the heritage of place.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".