Delivering the National Trust's preservation purpose: mission, strategy and structure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whilst reporting on numerical-based activities such as income versus expenditure is relatively straightforward for organisations seeking to understand their progress in meeting their objectives, it is more difficult to present nonnumerical-based activities such as conservation and preservation in similar terms. However, without numerical key performance indicators (KPIs) conservation activities risk becoming invisible in organisational reporting, compared to activities that are easier to measure, such as, in heritage organisations that open their assets to the public, visitor numbers and income. The National Trust for England, Wales and Northern Ireland has devised a numerical measure to describe relative performance in reaching defined conservation standards, benchmarked against external standards such as the Canadian Conservation Institute's 'Agents of Deterioration' framework and the UK's Museum Accreditation Scheme. This paper describes the development and practice of this measure, the Conservation Performance Indicator (CPI), with particular reference to cultural heritage features, such as historic interiors, collections, buildings and archaeology, and in the context of the evolution of a devolved structure.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it