Conservation Heating 24 Years On
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Control of relative humidity (RH) for collections care is challenging in U.K. historic houses because they are often highly ventilated with poor heat retention, a porous building fabric and naturally tend to high (60–80%) RH if unheated. The significance of the building means that large-scale modifications and installation of air handling systems may be unfeasible and undesirable for the conservation of the building. In the late 1980s the National Trust, for English, Wales and Northern Ireland, investigated conservation heating as an RH control method that works with the natural environment of historic buildings, mimicking historic heating and requiring only modification of existing heating services or a light touch installation of new heating systems. The National Trust adopted conservation heating as its preferred method for environmental control in historic buildings from the 1990s. This method was presented at the IIC 1994 Ottawa congress on preventive conservation. Conservation heating has since been adopted by many historic house management organisations, particularly across north-west Europe, where it is well suited to the climate. This paper reviews conservation heating developments implemented by the National Trust since 1994, in response to a changing external context, new knowledge and developments in operational practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.021 |
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".