MUSEOLOGY OF THE LIVING HERITAGE OF COGNAC CULTURE IN NOUVELLE-AQUITAINE: FOR AN INTERNATIONAL REREADING OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN DEVELOPMENT OF EAU-DE-VIE OF COGNAC IN THE CHARENTES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communities have always invented systems to preserve the evolution and the history of their thoughts. Nevertheless, how is the knowledge associated with this human thought cultivated? Where does it come from and in what ways is it constituted? The answers to these questions are partly given through actions intended to preserve and enhance the collections of tangible and intangible artifacts present in museums. From science, society or art, but also ecomuseums, interpretation centres or archives, communities ensure the survival of this knowledge in many ways. This article highlights the knowledge, practices and know-how resulting from the living heritage of Cognac brandy, registered as a French intangible heritage in 2020. The Association des Savoir-faire du Cognac’s request for an inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, opens new perspectives for the interpretation of this intangible heritage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".