Associative dimension in World Heritage: an analysis of criterion (vi)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper is based on a presentation given at the international World Heritage expert meeting on criterion (vi) held in Warsaw, Poland, in March 2012. Results were updated and adapted to scientific standards. The purpose of this paper is to understand the associative dimension in World Heritage by looking at the evolution and application of criterion (vi). Design/methodology/approach – For this paper, historical and qualitative approaches were combined. An understanding of the evolution of the criterion (vi) wording was gained through historical analysis and the consultation of relevant World Heritage statutory documents. A selected number of criterion (vi) statements were analyzed in qualitative terms. Results were then discussed in relation to the evolution of criterion (vi) wording and the understanding of pertinent World Heritage concepts. Findings – Criterion (vi) holds a special position. It addresses an associative dimension of cultural World Heritage sites. Due to its special character, its wording was subject to several changes. While its wording became ever more flexible, this development has not fostered the inscription of exceptional cases or the equal use of cultural associations. An inconsistent interpretation has also weakened the concept of Outstanding Universal Value. Research limitations/implications – Only inscriptions were taken into consideration. They usually have a World Heritage Committee approved criterion (vi) statement. Limitations to this research result from this restriction. Originality/value – The paper represents a comprehensive study of the application and interpretation of criterion (vi) that combines the understanding of the evolution of the criterion’s wording with the analysis of a large number of World Heritage inscriptions. It is of interest to the World Heritage community and contributes to the World Heritage discourse.
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 | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".