MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059088892 · doi:10.1017/s0940739111000117

Rogers' Chocolates Ltd. and the Corporation of the City of Victoria: A Case Comment on Involuntary Designation and the Conservation of Heritage Buildings

2011· article· en· W2059088892 on OpenAlexaff
Gillian S. J. Piggott

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cultural Property · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporationGovernment (linguistics)IncentiveCultural heritageLocal governmentIndustrial heritageSustainabilityProperty rightsBusinessCompensation (psychology)Environmental planningPublic administrationPolitical scienceCultural heritage managementLawGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The process adopted by the local government to protect the interior of an old building in Victoria, British Columbia, culminated in a significant compensation award in favor of the building's owner and highlights the shortcomings of a coercive regulatory approach to heritage conservation. This study focuses on the relationship between cooperative resolution of conflicts between the rights of the public to protect heritage buildings and the rights of private property owners to the use of their property without interference, on the one hand, and the long-term utility and conservation of historic buildings and the sustainability of local government heritage programs, on the other. Analysis includes discussion on (a) key issues arising out of an involuntary heritage designation, (b) flexible alternative conservation mechanisms and incentives available to local governments, (c) approaches to conservation of heritage buildings in other jurisdictions, and (d) opportunities for improvement in the local government heritage conservation program.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0490.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0220.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.134 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cultural PropertySame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207