MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘Merlin and the Mason’: Balancing New Technology and Tradition

2004· article· en· W1972289760 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. J. C. Watt, Martin E. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Architectural Conservation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftMasonryPresentation (obstetrics)HistoryWork (physics)EngineeringDisciplineArchitectural engineeringManagementSociologyArchaeologySocial scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the wide range of problems that confront us in the conservation of historic masonry buildings. Many of the problems are concerned with incidences of departure from traditional materials and their uses, which are particularly common in the buildings of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In other rarer cases we are confronted with unusual uses of materials in former centuries where the actual construction details and specifications do not appear ever to have been written down—and where the essential craft or trade knowledge was usually passed from master mason to new mason by word of mouth.The authors work together frequently on major conservation projects combining the skills, knowledge, and experience of the master mason with those of the forensic conservation specialist. In a review of projects ranging from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries, the authors seek to demonstrate some of the positive and problematic aspects of multi-disciplinary approaches to conservation.This paper is based on a presentation given on masonry restoration at the Construction Specifications Canada conference held in Ottawa during May 2001.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.047
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Architectural ConservationSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207