Heritage Stone 1. Repair and Maintenance of Natural Stone in Historical Structures: The Potential Role of the IUGS Global Heritage Stone Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural stone has been used for millennia in many historically and culturally important structures. It inevitably undergoes weathering from natural processes and damage from human activities. Deterioration affects both ornamental features and main structural members of constructions, ultimately requiring repair and maintenance, or causing loss of the structure altogether. Stone similar to the original should generally be used for repairs, but if that is impossible a closely similar material is required. Use of inappropriate stone or treatment with incompatible mortars can be aesthetically unsightly or have structurally and financially damaging consequences. Such use typically arises because of a lack of information and awareness among commissioners and specifiers of works, along with budget constraints leading to selection of cheaper alternatives. Even some World Heritage Sites have suffered. Selected examples from Western Europe illustrate these problems. The Global Heritage Stone initiative has been launched to improve recognition of the internationally most important heritage stones, promote their proper use in construction, maintenance and repair, and to stress the need to safeguard important stone resources for future use.RÉSUMÉLa pierre naturelle a été utilisée depuis des millénaires dans de nombreuses structures importantes historiquement et culturellement. Inévitablement cette pierre s’altère sous l’effet de processus naturels et de dommages causés par les activités humaines. Cette détérioration affecte aussi bien les éléments ornementaux que les principaux éléments structuraux des constructions, ce qui, éventuellement nécessite réparation et entretien, ou alors peut entraîner la perte de la structure. Une pierre semblable à l'originale doit généralement être utilisée pour des réparations, ou alors un matériau très similaire est requis. L’utilisation d’une pierre inappropriée ou un traitement avec des mortiers incompatibles peut être esthétiquement disgracieux ou avoir des conséquences structurellement et financièrement préjudiciables. Cette utilisation erronée est typiquement le résultat d’un manque d'information et de sensibilisation des commissaires et des rédacteurs du cahier des charges, ainsi que de contraintes budgétaires conduisant au choix d’options moins coûteuses. Et même, certains sites du patrimoine mondial en ont souffert. Des exemples choisis de l'Europe de l’ouest illustrent ces problèmes. L'initiative du patrimoine mondial de la pierre de taille lancée pour améliorer la conscience à l'échelle internationale des principales pierres du patrimoine, promouvoir leur utilisation correcte dans la construction, leur entretien et leur réparation, et souligner la nécessité de préserver les ressources importantes en pierre pour les besoins à venir. Traduit par le Traducteur
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".