Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cultural mapping is a mode of inquiry and a methodological tool that aims to make visible the ways local stories, practices, relationships, memories, and rituals constitute places as meaningful locations. Although there is still a fuzziness to the boundaries of this field, cultural mapping has generally evolved along two main branches: The first begins with cultural assets, seeking to identify and document tangible and intangible assets of a place to ultimately develop a cultural resource or asset mapping. The second branch begins with a culturally sensitive humanistic approach, seeking to articulate a “sense of place,” people-place meanings, and distinctive elements. While the former approach tends to emphasize the documentation of “information” and the latter tends to focus more on “participation” and “meaning,” they are increasingly mutually informing approaches. Cultural mapping/cartography is allied with deep mapping, community mapping, participatory asset mapping, counter-mapping, qualitative GIS, and emotional mapping. These are connected through their focus on bottom-up processes for making visible the knowledge of citizens/residents, and shared topics of narratives, identity, histories, and local practices that bring meanings to places. Cultural mapping has shifted from focusing on tangible cultural assets to intangible aspects of place, aiming to discover what makes a place distinctive. Cultural products such as literature, film, and music draw from and contribute to the cultural meanings of a place; and the mapping of these onto a territory also forms a branch of cultural mapping. This work is also found within the fields of geography (see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Geography articles “Geography and Literature,” “Geography and Film,” and “Geographies of Music, Sound, and Auditory Culture”), tourism, and digital humanities. Artist map traditions also influence the field of cultural mapping (see the section on “Map Art” within the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Geography article “Community Mapping”), with artists taking on a leadership role in many community-engaged cultural mapping initiatives. Cultural mapping has been co-developed through a loosely formulated international community of practice consisting of scholars, in-community practitioners, and policy/governance agencies (e.g., UNESCO, national cultural ministries, local authorities). While this annotated bibliography focuses mainly on the leading scholarly work in this field, it also provides an international selection of cultural mapping handbooks and toolkits as well as examples of cultural mapping projects. Following General Overviews, Special Journal Issues, Methodologies, and Theoretical Underpinnings of the field, this entry is organized according to seven domains of contemporary cultural mapping research and practice: Community Engagement, Participation, and Empowerment; Indigenous Cultural Mapping; Cultural and Creative Industries Mapping; Local Cultural Planning and Governance; Artistic Approaches; Literary and Film Mapping; and Technological Approaches.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,211 | 0,067 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».