Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis aims to understand how indigenous heritage values might be represented in post-colonial urban environments. Using an urban design and landscape architecture lens, this paper builds on an emerging body of heritage knowledge in an attempt to recognize the contrasts between western and indigenous heritage values.\n\nThrough the study of a selection of indigenous landscape precedents from America, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand, common representational trends of heritage design are identified. These examples illustrate some of the issues that arise when landscapes of indigenous significance are presented within a western heritage framework.\n\nThe documents, Tapuwae and Te Aranga: Māori Cultural Landscape Strategy are introduced as guides to Māori intangible heritage. These guides are discussed in relation to the New Zealand urban design and heritage discourse. Contemporary outcomes of this current heritage climate include Waitangi Park and Pipitea pa. These are discussed and found to possess a number of values contributing to a positive approach to indigenous heritage design within Wellington’s challenging urban environment.\n\nTo continue this discussion, 39 Taranaki Street becomes the site of a design exploration. In 2005, three ponga (silver tree fern) whare (houses) of Te Aro pa, were unearthed on this site. The whare are the only known physical trace of the Taranaki whānui’s pa (village), which stood from 1835 to 1902. The whare are currently preserved in-situ as part of an apartment complex. The design concept is to link the past layers to the current and future development of the site and its precinct in order to celebrate the close connection between the past and the present that intangible heritage practices facilitate.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".