Bibliographic record
Abstract
El patrimoni literari pot esdevenir una «eina» on sentir-nos identificats com a societat, al mateix temps que pot convertir-se en un element diferenciador amb capacitat de posicionar-se i esdevenir agent socioeconòmic. Perquè això succeeixi cal que abandoni la seva posició perifèrica i se’n professionalitzi la gestió. Precisament l’objectiu d’aquesta publicació és evidenciar la importància de la gestió del patrimoni literari perquè es (re)conegui com a propi al si d’una societat i sobrevisqui al pas del temps reconeixent-li i reivindicant-ne la importància en termes identitaris, de cohesió social i econòmics, com a motor de desenvolupament.Per aconseguir-ho es comença investigant sobre el concepte de patrimoni literari, entès com a (poli)sistema, per després conceptualitzar-ne la gestió. Seguidament, es fa una aproximació, amb voluntat comparativa, a l’estat de la qüestió de la gestió a Catalunya i a Anglaterra, per acabar creant un model de valoració de la gestió del patrimoni literari. Finalment, s’exposen les conclusions pertinents amb la voluntat de posicionar el patrimoni literari en la centralitat del sistema cultural català.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.006 |
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".