Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reduced to its simplest of terms, heritage refers to the contemporary activities through which the past comes to matter in the present.In this respect, when most of us write or speak about heritage, we are referring to a social framework of institutions and practices that select, conserve and present material and intangible traces of the past.Within such activities, judgments are made as to which particular aspects of the past are worthy of preservation and are of potential significance for social memory.All this is no doubt well understood.Institutions of heritage and the practices they organize are attempts to embody, through landscape, artifact, text, and performance, something of the story and spirit of a social entity, whether defined as an all embracing notion of humankind or delimited as a particular nation, region, religion, or ethno-cultural group.Furthermore, it has become commonplace to acknowledge that how and what gets named as essential to the story and spirit of any social entity must always be understood as regulated (and potentially contested) within the power relations that constitute what counts as heritage.Such acknowledgement inevitably brings to the fore the concerns: "whose heritage is being referred to?" and "who is defining it for whom?"These are clearly extremely important questions in that they help us resist an all too facile, reductive nationalism which suppresses acknowledgment of the multicultural complexity of contemporary nation states within our era of hyper-globalization.They also can help us resist attempts to construct leveling notions of a universal heritage that fail to acknowledge not only the very real differences as to the substance and meanings of past and present lives, but the terms on which such differences have been constituted.On such terms heritage practices are practices of recognition and proprietorship.They are practices ultimately assessed in relation to who it is that may or may not recognize themselves as those addressed by them.That is, who it is that may experience a felt sense of belonging to the story and spirit of the social entity being re-articulated through the activity of heritage. 1 The question of whose heritage is being represented ends up constituting heritage as a form of property relation, as signaling that a particular set of stories, songs, artifacts or texts belong to somebody.This opens concerns regarding the rights and responsibilities of proprietorship.Thus one's answer to the question who has the right to do what with "my heritage," will not only be based on one's own life experience but as well, on one's inscription as a member of a bounded sociality that defines itself in part through the (at times, contested) discourse as to what is to be included in its "common heritage."On these terms, the frameworks that regulate heritage organizations and practices may be understood to operate as, what Deleuze and Guattari called, "social machines" for parsing people into distinct entities and articulating distinctive sets of identifications and desires. 2 The operation of these social technologies define much of contemporary cosmopolitan existence: people live contiguously, but within differing pasts and temporal sensibilities.As Ernst Bloch put it, "Not all people exist in the same 1 Hall, Stuart."
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it