SPOŁECZNY KOMITET ODNOWY ZABYTKÓW KRAKOWA: GENEZA, DOŚWIADCZENIA, PROGRAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Committee (acronym: SKOZK) was established in 1978, following listing Krakow as a world heritage site. It fulfilled expectations from the past, when heritage assets were damaged by industrial pollution and state ideology curtailed financing of works on sacred and private grounds.An undoubted strength of the early time was the recognition of Krakow heritage protection as a matter of state importance, while the domination of political circumstances remained a weakness.The political transformation of 1989/90 changed the environment: SKOZK was now dominated by heritage preservation milieus, and members were appointed by the President of the Republic of Poland, and his Chancellery provided a major part of financial means. As grants generally cover up to 50% of the cost, the fund has a stimulating role as beneficiaries need to find sources for matching funds. Since 1990, the Committee’s activity has concentrated on the most valuable complexes: Wawel, the historical centre of the city, former town of Kazimierz with Jewish quarter, and the most treasurable enclaves situated on the outskirts of the city.Achievements of SKOZK include development of a model for cooperation between private (NGO) and public (central and territorial authorities) sectors, definition of strategic goals, and a priority of the ensuing tasks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.007 |
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".