Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between terroir and cultural identity to illustrate that the concept is being employed as a means to reconnect people to the land or an ancestral heritage. The rapid pace of globalization has created a disconnect between identity and the land for many people. If it is true that 99% of human history has been spent as hunter-gathers, it is fair to say that we have a strong connection to the land as a sense of placein direct relation to food procurement. We know we can´t go back to being hunter-gathers, but it doesn´t mean we can´t seek out or desire a connection to the land or an ancestral heritage. This connection can be represented by the concept of terroir. To synthesize the various defi nitions of terroir, it is important to explore the historical origins of the term. A philosophical view establishes that the concept of terroir exists as a separate experience to be refl ected upon independentfrom the sensory experience produced by eating or drinking a food product. A selection of essays and articles are presented to illustrate that the human or cultural component is the most important factor in considering the role of terroir in shaping or creating identity at ethnic, national, regional, and individual levels. Whether one simply believes the concept is being used as a marketing gimmick or that it resonates with our identities, terroir does exist in relating place, timeand people to the production, consumption, and epistemolog y of our modern foodways.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".