Valor universal e valores locais: qual o lugar conferido às populações? O exemplo da cidade de Arequipa, no Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Os sitios urbanos inscritos na Lista do Patrimonio Mundial abrigam problematicas sociais particularmente importantes. Lugar de vida e de atividades diversas, eles sao o dominio privilegiado de tensoes multiplas, onde os habitantes, no melhor dos casos, nao tem sido integrados ao processo de inscricao e, no pior, tem sido vitimas de transformacoes de seu modo de vida, sendo forcados a deixar seu lugar de moradia. Neste contexto, a Recomendacao sobre a Paisagem Urbana Historica , documento adotado pela Conferencia geral da UNESCO, em 2011, tornou mais necessario do que nunca compreender a verdadeira contribuicao das comunidades residentes na elaboracao de candidaturas ao VUE e em sua gestao posterior. Este artigo propoe-se entao a apresentar dois casos que ilustram este fenomeno, ambos situados no centro historico de Arequipa (Peru). Evidenciando duas abordagens distintas do valor patrimonial de elementos restaurados, este texto busca compreender porque certos projetos parecem favorecer a reapropriacao local e a producao de identidade enquanto que outros provocam uma forte rejeicao local e destruicao identitaria.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".