Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While many critics hold historic conservation or preservation in contempt for its complicity in gentrification, this article explores its continuing relevance as an aesthetic politics of everyday life. Interweaving vignettes taken from interviews with conservationists in London, the history of institutionalized heritage in Britain, as well as theories on aesthetics and everyday life in postmodern late capitalism, this article demonstrates the contradictory nature of conservation's aesthetic politics. Although conservationists normalize architectural and social histories, the author argues that they also mobilize a 'spatial politics of affect', appreciating the expressive, and potentially insurgent, power of material objects in the face of an increasingly banal everyday life under late capitalism. Finally, the author suggests that conservationists begin considering how Black and Asian Britons are injecting new spatial uses that offer new avenues for the relevance of conservation's aesthetic politics to Britain's increasingly culturally hybrid everyday life.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it