Preserving cultural heritage and developing a modern city: the difficult case of Euesperides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This note reports on a paper presented at the American Institute of Archaeology 107th Annual Meeting (Montreal January 2006). The theme of the American Institute of Archaeology Annual meeting was ‘Management and Preservation of Cultural Heritage’. The Euesperides Project presented a paper on Euesperides (Sidi Abeid, Benghazi), the Archaic Greek settlement founded in the sixth century BC. Although the site was declared a protected area for its historical and archaeological importance, it still lacks effective protection. The site, important also from a naturalistic point of view, is used as an illegal rubbish dumping area and is awaiting a long-promised wall to prevent indiscriminate access to it. The paper stressed that many sites in Libya are in need of preservation and protection, even more so after the opening of the country to tourism. The need to develop new infrastructure, if not carefully planned in respect of the cultural heritage, may result in indiscriminate development, as witnessed at Apollonia, where a harbour was being built near the site, obliterating the ancient port. The paper discussed also the Project's proposal presented to the local authorities, concerning the realization of an archaeological park and museum of the history of Benghazi. These projects are important not only to attract tourists, but above all for the local schools and educational programmes directed to inform the younger generations about the importance of their past.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".