MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163162486 · doi:10.32028/exnovo.v1i0.398

Exploring the public perception of Communist Heritage in Post-communist Albania

2016· article· en· W3163162486 on OpenAlexaffabout
F. Iacono, Klejd Këlliçi

Bibliographic record

VenueEx Novo Journal of Archaeology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsArthur B. McDonald-Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunismCultural heritagePolitical scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)PerceptionCommunist stateCapital (architecture)SociologyEconomyPolitical economyGeographyPoliticsArchaeologyPsychologyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than a quarter of a century after the fall of the eastern bloc (broadly intended), former commu­nist countries have dramatically changed. Yet the memory of the recent past is sometimes perceived as being accompanied by a considerable sense of unease. This process is mirrored clearly in the way some countries have dealt with the physical remains of the regime. This paper will focus on a case study from contemporary Albania and represents one of the first attempts at addressing the social significance of the remnants of the recent communist past in this country. It is undertaken not only through a theo­retical and historical investigation, but also via a direct survey of the public (in this case a sample of citizens of the capital city Tirana). Our results suggest that, contrary to our initial assumptions, there is a considerable widely shared interest in the material remnants of the regime and that its cultural heritage its cultural heritage still needs to be explained.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEx Novo Journal of ArchaeologySame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207