Whose heritage? Determining values of modern public spaces in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the heritage value of modern public spaces designed by landscape architects in Canada. Design/methodology/approach The two-pronged research first aimed to verify if evaluation criteria currently used by heritage practitioners could apply to those public spaces. The second research area developed deals with social value. Here, the publicness of public spaces was used to broaden the scope of potential heritage values so as to include one that relates to the appreciation communicated by those who use them. Field enquiries were conducted to capture this social value. Findings The results of the enquiries demonstrate that identifying a social value can be a delicate process. Not only is it a lengthy endeavour, but opinions about the reasons why a place is important can differ amongst users. Public spaces provide us with a valuable reminder about the need to strike a balance between the evolution according to the needs and the desire of users and the conservation of traditional heritage values understood through historical associations and aesthetics. Originality/value This exploratory research was the opportunity to deepen the understanding of what is entailed when referring to social value in heritage conservation processes. It also helped to demonstrate the importance for landscape architects to integrate the field of heritage conservation. Landscape architects are natural allies with the field of heritage conservation’s new paradigm discussed in this paper by which human values are increasingly the focus of conservation instead of the fabric.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".