World awareness of rock art as evidenced from UNESCO's World Heritage List
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolA partir de la Lista de Patrimonio Mundial de la UNESCO se obtiene una informacion preciosa acerca de la importancia que los estados conceden al arte rupestre. En la actualidad, la Lista incluye 27 sitios o grupos de sitios con arte rupestre que fueron incluidos por sus propios meritos, es decir, como lugares con arte rupestre y no por otras razones tales como los paisajes u otras formas de patrimonio cultural. Podriamos incorporar otros 19 lugares que incluyen arte rupestre pero cuya presencia en la Lista se debe a alguna de esas otras cualidades. En 2014 la Lista contaba con un total de 891 bienes. Por tanto, los sitios con arte rupestre representan un mero 4,8%, o un 2,7% si solo tomamos en consideracion aquellos que fueron incorporados exclusivamente por su arte rupestre. En el mundo puede haber mas de 400.000 sitios con arte rupestre. El continente con mayor numero es Africa (aproximadamente la mitad), mientras que Australia es el mas rico del mundo en arte rupestre (probablemente con mas de 100.000 lugares). Australia tiene solo tres lugares en la Lista, incluyendo dos que lo fueron por razones ajenas a su arte rupestre. Mientras Europa y America Latina hicieron grandes esfuerzos para conseguir el merecido reconocimiento de su arte rupestre, America del Norte (USA y Canada) estan lejos de esta situacion, ya que ningun bien con arte rupestre de esta procedencia se han incorporado hasta ahora a la Lista. EnglishTaking cognizance of UNESCO�s World Heritage List provides precious information on the relative importance that States attach to rock art. At present, the List includes 27 sites or series of rock art sites that were put on it for their own merits, i.e. as rock art sites and not for other reasons such as landscapes or other forms of cultural heritage. We may add 19 other sites that include rock art but whose presence on the List is due to such other different qualities. In 2014, the List numbers a total of 981 sites. The sites with rock art thus represent a mere 4.8% and those put on the List for their rock art only, 2.7%. In the world there must be more than 400,000 rock art sites. The continent with most (about half) is Africa, while Australia is the richest country in the world for rock art (probably more than 100,000 sites). Now, Australia has just got three sites on the List, including two for reasons extraneous to their rock art. If Europe and Latin America made great efforts to have their rock art acknowledged as it should, this is far from being the case in North America (USA and Canada) where not a single rock art site has ever been put as such on the List.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".