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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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