Beyond official heritage agendas: The third space of conservation practices in Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban heritage conservation has often been portrayed as a practice shaped by ‘authorised discourses’ which are produced by powerful actors including the state, international organisations and experts. But the literature has also paid attention to non-governmental actors who produce ‘unauthorised heritage discourses’ by calling for broader and more diversified heritage interpretations and practices. Using the case of Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, we argue that the dichotomy between authorised and unauthorised heritage has produced artificial boundaries between those legacies which have been (or should be) identified as heritage and the multiple remains of the past which nobody has ever attempted to define as such. Instead, we argue that multiple authorised discourses, circulating worldwide, generate a pervasive global hierarchy of value which relates to heritage. Various actors, including bilateral donors, states’ representatives, tycoons, owners and tenants, shape urban tactics which selectively appropriate components of this hierarchy and combine them with socio-political and economic rationalities in order to conserve Phnom Penh’s urban legacies. Taken together, these tactics shape what we name a ‘third space of heritage hybridity’ outside the scope of official agendas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".