Commemoration of national heritage : institutional practices and legitimising strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The writer discusses various strategies that heritage bureaucrats and heritage commodifiers, acting as the main agents in the field, present to justify the importance they are granted in the commemoration of national heritage. Heritage bureaucrats and heritage commodifiers claim legitimacy from staging heritage activities that are recognized as such by the public in audience and for being legally authorized to do so. Both also resort to invectives and analogies to consolidate their position, or deny their competitors the right to be there. Heritage commodifiers claim that their productions bring wealth to society. In turn, wealth secures political unity, social consensus, and meanings for all to share. Heritage, a property in the public ownership, can be made to profit as if it were private property - a patrimony, and cultural resources can be traded as commodities. Heritage brings wealth to commodifiers, to those who agree with the idea of making heritage pay, as they transform their investments into symbolic capital - the right to define reality in the field and in society, and to have others abide by their definitions. Bureaucrats are entrusted with the management of the City's heritage resources because of their proven expertise in the field, and their commitment to the democratic process that managing the public wealth implies. Heritage bureaucrats create traditions, exemplary characters and meanings which they put on display as if they were fetishes. Failing to sustain their claim to effectiveness and efficiency, they revert to the field's most ancient tradition, and stage heritage celebrations as if they were religious commemorations. The writer takes after Bourdieu, Weber and Balandier, amongst others, to define the true nature of heritage commemoration through practices and strategies. His main sources are official publications and heritage productions from Canadian Heritage organisations.
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 | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".