Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up until now, values associated with heritage are generally similar: places are usually deemed worthy of preservation for their historical associations to important people or events, their aesthetic/architectural qualities, and their physical relation to their surrounding context. But, in the future, can these remain the only reasons for preserving a place? In the interests of pursuing the natural alliance between sustainable development and heritage conservation, the question begs to be asked in the particular context of heritage evaluations. Beyond its traditional cultural meanings, can the definition of heritage continue to broaden to encompass sustainability’s criteria? This article proposes to examine how the paradigm of sustainable development can be incorporated in the current heritage evaluation methods used in Canada’s federal and municipal levels of government. The Port of Montreal’s grain elevator no. 5 (Silo No. 5), built between 1906 and 1958 and currently awaiting a new use, will be examined. By virtue of its size, situation, and volume, Silo No. 5 can provoke an interesting discussion about the possibilities of integrating social, economic, and environmental issues in heritage conservation processes.
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 | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.095 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".