Les zones de protection du patrimoine architectural, urbain et paysager (ZPPAUP): Une forme de gouvernance patrimoniale?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ZPPAUP : a kind of patrimonial governance?In a global context where the consideration of heritage is growing about a variety of the concerned spaces and their surfaces, there are many protective measures for their patrimonial items.In France, the State is competent in this domain in spite of the decentralisation laws (1980') which give a kind of autonomy to local authorities.However, a procedure escapes from the rule and introduces an another way to think patrimonial action by emphasizing negociation and consensus : in succession of contractual policies linked to decentralisation, architectural, urban and landscape heritage protection areas (ZPPAUP) enable debates on the local scene of negociation giving the local authorities a largest space for intervention.This kind of action is similar to the governance process but is abortive and constitutes a specific kind of patrimonial regulation of local action.In the case of a French city, Orléans, this contribution questions relevance of such notions as governance and patrimonial regulation about the recent implementation of ZAPPUP in historical city centre.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".