Retour aux sources pour une meilleure reconnaissance et valorisation du patrimoine paysager perse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical gardens, being the combined work of nature and humans, are an integral part of our cultural landscapes; they echo the cultural, nature-oriented and identity values and technical expertise of their founders. Research undertaken to preserve the values and expertise of earlier eras may help to safeguard and protect heritage landscapes for present generations, and their transmission to future generations. Today, the preservation of historical gardens, like all historical and heritage sites, is an important component of heritage policies. Despite the steps taken to better understand, manage and maintain historical gardens, insufficient emphasis has been placed on the need to study and preserve historical documents. Such documents provide a wealth of information which, when carefully considered and analysed, could lead to a better understanding and recognition of heritage landscapes, particularly when very little physical evidence remains of their characteristic features and elements. An important aspect of my research, in addition to the focus on the methods and approaches used to identify and understand the spirit of place and the mechanisms that govern heritage landscapes, is the comprehensive study of historical documents. Careful study of such documents may lead to a better understanding of specific sites and their evolution. This, in turn, especially when such sites no longer have a physical reality, may offer guidance and direction to programmes and processes aimed at their preservation and promotion. In this article, the empirical evidence provided by historical documents is used to better identify and understand the characteristic features and elements of the Persian garden of the Qajar period (late nineteenth to early twentieth century). The article focuses primarily on an excerpt from the Tarikh-e Kashan (History of Kashan) dated to the early nineteenth century. The excerpt provides a description of this Qajar garden, referring to it as the Oriental Paradise (Mashreq e-Ferdows); it was located at Borzābād of Kashan, close to the Royal Garden of Fin. It is reasonably possible that no trace of this garden exists today. However, this research, through an intensive review of the historical document, has highlighted some key features and elements of the landscape aspects of the Qajar pleasure gardens of the mid-nineteenth century. Through textual analysis, the main components of the garden were identified; this made it possible to diagram its original plan. This research highlights the dual characteristics of the garden, a mix of contrasting Persian and European aspects, which resulted in its particular composition and gave it a unique and exceptional character. These research findings could be very useful in planning for the conservation and promotion of the gardens of this period, especially those that still exist in the area of Kashan.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.011 |
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".