"The Devil's In The Details": Benign Neglect and the Erosion of Heritage in St. John's, Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SOON AFTER ITS DESIGNATION in 1977, the St. John’s Heritage Conservation Area [HCA] 1 was characterized by Canada’s leading writer on heritage issues as the most successful area conservation scheme yet undertaken in the country (Tunbridge, 1981: 118). One significant characteristic was that it incorporated a large part of the central commercial, institutional and residential core of a metropolitan area (Riopelle, 1978). Furthermore, the investment of public and philanthropic funds successfully elicited a considerable amount of private investment, thus satisfying one of the scheme’s original goals. A principal cause of this investment multiplier — a ‘halo effect’ — was that the St. John’s Heritage Foundation [SJHF] purchased, restored and resold 28 houses between 1978 and 1981 (Figure 1). There also seemed to be a strong municipal commitment to heritage conservation, recognizing that, as expressed in public meetings, “the residents of St. John’s appreciate their city mainly for what it is and has been, rather than for what it could potentially be” (City of St. John’s, 1984: Section II-6). 2 The 1990 Municipal Plan, in a section subsequently weakened, said that “one of the City’s main assets, one that contributes so much to the enjoyment of its residents and visitors, is its built heritage of fine old buildings and streetscapes. It is important to preserve and enhance these features as a part of the development of the City” (City of St. John’s, 1990: Section II-10). 3 As recently as 1999 St. John’s was identified at the Construct Canada Exhibition as one of Canada’s outstanding achievements in building and construction. Yet a recent book by three of the most prominent names in the heritage field stated that “St. John’s can claim the dubious distinction of possessing both the largest and the most unsuccessful conservation area in Canada” (Graham et al., 2000).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".