Heritage Conservation, UNESCO and Intangible Cultural Heritage in Eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since Canada has signed the UNESCOConvention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritageof 1972, it has had some eighteen cultural and natural sites selected for the World Heritage List that represent internationally significant nature reserves and natural wonders, significant Canadian architectural history, important sites representing Canadian aboriginal culture and geological treasures of world-wide importance. These internationally significant sites have put Canada on the world stage in both the heritage conservation field and in the national and international tourism sector. What Canada has decided to inscribe on this list has had a major impact at the local, regional, national and international arenas. The author of this paper reflects on some of the ancillary guiding charters and conventions since the World Heritage Convention was implemented that have led to where we are today in the field of heritage conservation in Canada. He goes on to predict some areas where heritage conservation will be going in Canada in the near future. He argues that Canada could likewise have its rich intangible culture play a similarly significant role if the Canadian government signed the UNESCOConvention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritageof 2003. Last, he discusses some of the recent developments in eastern Canada in intangible cultural heritage, conservation and the sustaining of traditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".