Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beijing is the most important and dynamic city in China. A vital ingredient in that success has been its historic environment- its imperial palaces, its temples, its siheyuans, its hutongs- which provides the texture of the Old Beijing city. The historic environment is key to Beijing’s prosperity and a social asset of value. Nearly all the most prosperous and desirable areas in Beijing, the places where people most want to live, work and visit, are those where the historic environment is a dominant influence. \n\n\n\nThe article, “World Heritage Areas: A Critical Analysis”, written by Peter Neville, Hadley in National Post Canada says: \n\n\n\nUNESCO's World Heritage List is intended to help preserve historic sites, but in China, inclusion on the list can be the kiss of death. The major "carrot" of heritage designation is the increased levels of tourism its prestige generates.\n\n\n\nApparently, not only the designated heritage sites, but all the heritages are faced with the fate of being destroyed by tourism and development. Old buildings and lanes in Beijing never stop drawing visitors. The city, even the whole country is now proud of prosperous tourism which is always associated with ‘economic flourishing’. \n\n\n\nVirtually, every introduction tourism text contains at least one chapter discussing the social, cultural, and environmental impacts of tourism. This topic has also been the subject of extensive investigation in the academic literature. However, in regions that are undergoing rapid development and where an ethos of conservation has not been established, often surprising ignorance of the negative consequences of tourism exists. \n\n\n\nIn China, the attitude is still that the benefits of economic development outweigh any adverse costs such development may have. However, such an attitude is now seen as being shortsighted. As a result, a more balanced approach to tourism is advocated, acknowledging both its beneficial and detrimental effects on host communities and their cultures.\n\n\n\nConservation is about ensuring that we make the best use of our historic environment. It is a tool for managing change. Some still believe that conservation is simple about preserving the fabric of old buildings unchanged and developing the economic potential of tourism. They failed to see that conservation is an overarching work, the opposite of a wasteful society. It is easy to destroy - and today we have the tools, the money and the technology - but difficult to create. Cultural heritage, areas, landscapes and communities are a finite resource. Once lost they are lost forever. The purpose of conservation is to ensure that destruction is kept to a minimum while allowing creativity and innovation to flourish. \n\n\n\nWe should preserve the town of the past for the man of the future.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".