¿Es posible realizar un grafitti en un bien de interés cultural? A propósito del caso PichiAvo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La controversia respecto al grafiti y su consideración artística se puso de manifiesto en el caso de la intervención en el claustro gótico del Centro del Carmen, en Valencia, que realizó PichiAvo. La inclusión de un grafiti en un bien de interés cultural (BIC) despertó las suspicacias de si se amparaba en la legislación aplicable, y si era adecuada su ubicación, a pesar de realizarse en las paredes del claustro que se habían repintado en numerosas ocasiones, y además de ser de carácter efímero y reversible. El grafiti, como obra de la creación, genera derechos de autor, por ser una creación original, con independencia del soporte, y debe ser protegida como tal. La ausencia en la legislación del arte urbano, y el grafiti como una de sus expresiones, debe ser subsanada, por sus valores y reivindicaciones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".