Produits du Terroir: Similarities and Differences Between France, Québec and Vermont
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terroir is a word that carries powerful cultural and sensory associations in France. Although roughly translated a “taste of place,” terroir is more difficult to translate as a cultural concept. Terroir in France represents sensory qualities of food that capture a dynamic engagement between people, place and taste. This engagement can be seen in the decisions made by individual food producers to craft a product characteristic of their region. In France this engagement also extends to a conversation between those producing food and the regulators and researchers charged with monitoring and promoting specific products understood to have an exceptional relationship to place. This cooperation between multiple partners helps maintain an authentic sense of terroir within the modern, global food system. In both Québec and Vermont the provincial or state governments have developed a keen interest in the European investment in Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Geographic Indications (GI). To what extent could Vermont and Québec lead the way in developing and protecting the first New World produits du terroir with designations parallel to those found in Europe? This essay compares the different levels of engagement between product, practice and place found in France, Québec and Vermont.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".