MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126991519 · doi:10.5539/ass.v8n7p104

Culture Heritage and the Idea of Jordan Museums

2012· article· en· W2126991519 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Firas Alawneh, Raed Alghazawi, Fadi Balaawi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslamPower (physics)Cultural heritagePoliticsMiddle EastHistoryPolitical scienceAncient historyVisual artsArchaeologyLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The idea of collecting valued objects dates back to the period prior to the arrival of Islam, Arabs having traditionally placed precious things inside the Kaaba in Mecca for religious purposes .The idea of establishing museums in Jordan and the region started after Europeans began to turn their attention to the antiquities and traditional objects of the Arab world, whether as Christian missionaries, colonists or private individuals. In Jordan, the Department of Antiquities was established and participated in protecting the movable and immovable cultural heritage, which led to the establishment of museums. The DOA created museums throughout the country to spread the awareness of archaeology and heritage and to house archaeological objects. However, Jordanian museums developed slowly, as a result of a lack of interest and awareness, unqualified staff with inadequate power structures, political instability, poor economic conditions, the fact that publicly-run bodies do not benefit from their own income, and the absence of official associations or museum councils.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.021
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207