But What Are We Really Talking About? From Patrimoine to Heritage, a Few Avenues for Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes a history of the ideas of heritage founded on the differentiation between the concepts of heritage and patrimoine according to the two official languages in which they are approached and considered in Canada: that is, English and French. To do this, the author examines a varied corpus of published and unpublished historic and contemporary documents in order to determine the paradigms, the significance, and the practices that underlie the articulation and usage of the words heritage, patrimoine, and a few of their equivalents, according to their respective eras. In particular, by distinguishing patrimoine from heritage, we can also observe a metalanguage that opposes the institution and the status(es) that it confers to the community and its organic participation, which permits the assimilation of patrimoine, in French, to an ideological apparatus and to a social order, exclusive by definition, then observe the propagation of the meaning and its practices carried by the word patrimoine in French beyond the boundaries of language and into those that we now associate with heritage in English. After having identified the manifestations of this metalanguage in francophone and anglophone epistemologies of heritage studies and critical heritage studies, the author retraces several examples in the diverse regions of Canada, which permits a contrast between the parameters that define the concepts of heritage and patrimoine through what is (to be) common or what is (to be) transmitted, and whether the target is more focused on propriety or on usage. Finally, this “thick description” of the metalanguages of patrimoine and heritage allow us to discern what we could categorize as Canadian hybrids, born of the proximity of ideas of heritage and patrimoine on this territory, and to propose that in-depth intellectual inquiries might seize upon them to contribute to the resolution of theoretical and epistemological issues that the actions of public powers on heritage and patrimoine raise in the contemporary world.
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 | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.132 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.049 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".