Dominant Culture and Making Heritage Happen: The Building of an Interpretive Trail in British Columbia's Slocan Valley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I analyse an interpretive trail as an example of a volunteer-led heritage project that calls upon the authorized heritage discourse (), but is not reducible to it. Through a detailed history of the trail's development and interviews with key figures in the local initiative to create the Slocan Valley Rail Trail, I re-examine claims about the role of ordinary rural Euro-Canadians in perpetuating dominant historical epistemologies. I find that constructing an interpretive trail required engagement with dominant culture institutions (government agencies, non-profits, and corporations) for years before any interpretive material was ever developed, suggesting a degree of alignment with authority is necessary. And yet, this locally driven project had an important degree of autonomy in generating the content of the interpretive signage. Ultimately, volunteer-led heritage projects present an important site of local leveraging of authorized heritage and potentially the telling of histories that differ from dominant narrative.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".