MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049526580 · doi:10.7202/1070471ar

From tangible to intangible heritage

2020· article· en· W3049526580 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gàbor Sonkoly

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultural heritageCultural heritage managementIndustrial heritageValuesIntangible cultural heritageContext (archaeology)Agency (philosophy)VernacularEnvironmental ethicsSociologyHistoryGeographyPolitical scienceArchaeologyAestheticsSocial scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hollóko, the first World Heritage village in Europe (since 1987), is exemplary not only because its long history of preservation ranges over different cultural heritage regimes and integrates various levels of heritage protection, but also because it is a village which incorporates intangible heritage elements from the beginning of its conservation in spite of the fact that first it is only protected as an ensemble of vernacular buildings. The article shows by the analysis of the sixty plus years of the documented heritage protection of this village how the regimes of cultural heritage unfold; how cultural heritage agency functions in the context of the interactions between locals, professionals and visitors; and how this heritage village embodies different levels of cultural heritage. The cultural heritage agency is examined in a matrix, which is determined by the three regimes of cultural heritage and by the multiple levels of heritage interpretations ranging from universal to local. The heritagization of the village proves that this process does not wipe out, but reuses broken social practices and that the locals form a public community for which the rather sharp line separating public and private spheres is blurred and needs to be managed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.027
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.168
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.099 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnologiesSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207