Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emphasis on non-material knowledge and forms of communication in intangible cultural heritage can be related both to the expansion of curatorial interest in “experiential” displays and to the valorisation of what has, more broadly, been termed the “experience economy” in contemporary society. The recent interest in intangible cultural heritage, in other words, might usefully be situated in the context of what has been called “the cultural turn.” Given this context, the author of this article considers how the case of intangible cultural heritage throws two particular issues into stark relief: first, heated contemporary debates over the desirability of academics engaging with the administration of culture – over whether engaging with policy is an abdication of political possibility – and second, the boundaries of cultural policy, or what it is possible to administer. Positioning itself against a narrowly technocratic approach, the paper argues that we need to interrogate the cultural heritage of intangible cultural heritage itself. By doing so, we will be better equipped to consider what capacious, imaginative interactions between theory, policy, process and practice might look like.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it