MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1489199371

Beyond an Initial Campus Heritage Survey: Creating an Infrastructure for Renewal.

2011· article· en· W1489199371 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
David J. Neuman

Notice bibliographique

RevuePlanning for higher education · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAdaptive reuseSustainabilityStewardship (theology)Higher educationInstitutionReuseBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyArchitectural engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental planningLawGeography
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

How can an institution define its cultural heritage and its academic mission as intrinsically linked? Background Over the next decade, many colleges and universities will be faced with an unprecedented increase in the management and maintenance demands of an aging facilities inventory, including a large number of historic structures and landscapes. To provide for proper stewardship and continued use of these historic assets, campus administrators will be challenged to develop support strategies that both recognize the intrinsic and emotional value of these facilities and appreciate their capabilities to accommodate future trends in learning and research. Often it is presumed that these facilities are not capable of supporting current academic demands, but this opinion does not coincide with existing examples of successful continued use and adaptive reuse of historic buildings and grounds witnessed at many older colleges and universities from Scripps College to Florida Southern College, from the University of Toronto to the University of Mexico. Additionally, it is now generally acknowledged that the embodied energy represented in both historic and just-plain-older structures is important in reducing the demolish and rebuild cycle and its resulting introduction of large amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other toxic residues during reconstruction efforts. Therefore, the reuse of older structures aligns favorably with institutional commitments and intentions in the sustainability arena. In short, adaptively reusing a campus's existing facilities creates success in terms of both physical character and sustainability. Also, given the current economic climate, renewal and restoration of existing structures may be a realistic necessity because of dwindling public and private financial support for new capital developments. Survey In 2003, the University of Virginia (UVa) was fortunate to receive one of the 15 awards issued by the Campus Heritage Initiative program of the J. Paul Getty Trust during its second year of operation. This grant, more than matched by university funding, was designed to survey and evaluate structures and landscapes that had been constructed since the completion of Thomas Jefferson's Academical Village in 1828 and that had reached, at a minimum, the 40th anniversary of their occupancy. The exclusion of Jefferson's buildings and landscapes from the grant recognizes that the area of the Academical Village (38.5 acres) is listed as a World Heritage Site within the expanse of the university's current campus (1,135 acres). This designation assures the continued survival of these landscapes and buildings, although it does not mandate their overall condition. There are now 911 properties on the UNESCO World Heritage list. Of these, 704 are cultural, 180 are natural, and 27 are combined. Only four are solely active university sites: Acala de Henares (Madrid, Spain), Universidad Nacional Autonoma (Mexico City, Mexico), Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas (Caracas, Venezuela), and the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia, USA). This status, by itself, is both an incredible privilege and a huge responsibility that can frequently overshadow the fact that a significant number (32) of federally- and state-listed historic buildings and cultural landscapes also exist at UVa and need daily access and continuing care. The reason UVa uses 40 years for the evaluation of buildings and landscapes, rather than the normally recognized 50 years, may be obvious to those who have been involved in historic preservation for some time - to avoid the last-minute demolition-during-the-last-few-years-before-50 thinking of some uninformed parties. But the more important reason is that my office, UVa's Office of the Architect, wanted to create a heightened sense of awareness within the campus, the regional community, and the university's network of supporters that there are other historic preservation resources that extend far beyond the traditional Jeffersonian appeal of the Academical Village to alumni, faculty, and students. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,034

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0030,005
Science ouverte0,0010,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,186
Tête enseignante GPT0,331
Écart entre enseignants0,145 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePlanning for higher educationMême sujetCultural Heritage Management and PreservationTravaux en français237 207