Diagnosing decay: the value of medical analogy in understanding the weathering of building stones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper represents the first element of the introduction to this volume, and as such investigates its principal underlying rationale; namely the importance of accurate diagnosis of stone decay in the formulation of effective conservation strategies. It does this by exploring ways in which perceived similarities between stone decay and human disease have influenced attitudes towards conservation, and how refinements within medical diagnostic strategies can inform future condition assessments of building stones. In doing so, it identifies the importance of looking beyond obvious symptoms to the isolation of the fundamental causes of decay and the factors that control them. These controls are strongly conditioned by accumulated stresses within the stonework. In many buildings these are the product of a complex history involving exposure to a variety of environmental conditions and successive human intervention. Only by understanding these memory effects is it possible to explain current decay phenomena, attempt any prediction of future behaviour or recommend appropriate intervention. The concept of appropriateness is further developed through an examination of the TNM (Tumours, Nodes and Metastases) Staging System for cancer diagnosis. This holistic scheme embodies a progressive approach to diagnosis that begins with a clinical assessment based on how the patient presents, and leads on to more detailed pathological investigations involving sampling, testing and analysis. The scheme also requires an assessment of the certainty of the diagnosis and proposed treatments must be viewed in terms of a cost benefit analysis. A modified version of this staging system has already been developed for use in the physical assessment of buildings. It is suggested that the next stage in its development, and that of any other condition assessment procedure that deals solely with the fabric of a building, is the inclusion of a value-based appraisal of its cultural significance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".