The Context of Ecuador’s World Heritage, for Sustainable Development Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Convention for the Protection of the Global, Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972, arises from the need to identify some priceless and irreplaceable nation's assets. The first global natural heritage, recognized by UNESCO, was Galapagos Islands in 1978 and the first cultural heritage of humanity was Quito Historic Centre in the same year. Ecuador is the most compact megadiverse country, because it has four climatic regions at the same time: the amazing ocean's Coast, the Andean Highlands, the East-ern jungle and the insular wonder of Galapagos Islands; thus, assures us that we keep many assets, both natural and cultural. The aim of this article is to analyze the world heritages of Ecuador, and the possible candidates presented to UNESCO, with a matrix of SWOT analysis that allows us to set strategies that strengthen the current ones and lead for a greater achievement and awareness of this type of dignities. The methodology is based on the following steps: (i) Analysis and systematization of the existing information of the current world heritages of Ecuador, and the presented candidacies. (ii) Introduction to the new UNESCO designation called 'Geopark' in Ecuador and its impact, (iii) Realization of a SWOT analysis for the current world heritages in Ecuador and (iv) Proposal of strategies, through the SWOT matrix, for the strengthening, awareness and achievement of other assets. There are 1092 officially declared world heritages by UNESCO, Ecuador has eight. At the moment, Ecuador presented one Geopark candidacy and another five proposals to UNDP and five places were given candidacy to world heritage. This represents a set of places, values, but above all, humanity linked to this environment that offers a unique singularity and strengthens it due to its small territorial extension.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".