Some Notes on Area-based Conservation: Lesson Learned from Bandung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The city of Bandung is famous for its architectural legacy. As part of urban development, the architectural forms and urban fabrics were influenced by mixture of local-indigenous and Western traditions. Through colonialization cultural layering is a common attribute of most Asian cities. Nowadays, these unique fabrics become vulnerable due the tremendous pressure of urban development. Efforts of heritage management in Bandung have been started since 1990s, in which the first heritage list was accomplished in 1997, and later developed in 2005. The latest list of 2010 was planned for the historic quarter as a supplement to the previous listed building. Questions have been raised on the inclusion of the artefacts into the list and its consequences, due to lack of understanding of urban conservation. Meanwhile, recent debates on authenticity has substantially led to the rethinking of the criteria of conservation, and the designation the area-based conservation approach in urban heritage management. Based upon the mapping of historic urban quarter project, this paper unveils the problems and consequences of the heritage listing. Moreover, the study takes the stand that critical understanding of the urban context is crucial in designating the protection area, including legal bases, delineation and control mechanism.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".