Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reduced to its simplest of terms, heritage refers to the contemporary activities through which the past comes to matter in the present.In this respect, when most of us write or speak about heritage, we are referring to a social framework of institutions and practices that select, conserve and present material and intangible traces of the past.Within such activities, judgments are made as to which particular aspects of the past are worthy of preservation and are of potential significance for social memory.All this is no doubt well understood.Institutions of heritage and the practices they organize are attempts to embody, through landscape, artifact, text, and performance, something of the story and spirit of a social entity, whether defined as an all embracing notion of humankind or delimited as a particular nation, region, religion, or ethno-cultural group.Furthermore, it has become commonplace to acknowledge that how and what gets named as essential to the story and spirit of any social entity must always be understood as regulated (and potentially contested) within the power relations that constitute what counts as heritage.Such acknowledgement inevitably brings to the fore the concerns: "whose heritage is being referred to?" and "who is defining it for whom?"These are clearly extremely important questions in that they help us resist an all too facile, reductive nationalism which suppresses acknowledgment of the multicultural complexity of contemporary nation states within our era of hyper-globalization.They also can help us resist attempts to construct leveling notions of a universal heritage that fail to acknowledge not only the very real differences as to the substance and meanings of past and present lives, but the terms on which such differences have been constituted.On such terms heritage practices are practices of recognition and proprietorship.They are practices ultimately assessed in relation to who it is that may or may not recognize themselves as those addressed by them.That is, who it is that may experience a felt sense of belonging to the story and spirit of the social entity being re-articulated through the activity of heritage. 1 The question of whose heritage is being represented ends up constituting heritage as a form of property relation, as signaling that a particular set of stories, songs, artifacts or texts belong to somebody.This opens concerns regarding the rights and responsibilities of proprietorship.Thus one's answer to the question who has the right to do what with "my heritage," will not only be based on one's own life experience but as well, on one's inscription as a member of a bounded sociality that defines itself in part through the (at times, contested) discourse as to what is to be included in its "common heritage."On these terms, the frameworks that regulate heritage organizations and practices may be understood to operate as, what Deleuze and Guattari called, "social machines" for parsing people into distinct entities and articulating distinctive sets of identifications and desires. 2 The operation of these social technologies define much of contemporary cosmopolitan existence: people live contiguously, but within differing pasts and temporal sensibilities.As Ernst Bloch put it, "Not all people exist in the same 1 Hall, Stuart."
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».