Challenges to sustainability in prospective world heritage sites
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heritage cities often build on their cultural assets to develop as destinations. Yet, the assets communicated to visitors usually present only part of the picture. Heritage cities often tend to possess a significant cultural value that is hidden from the prying eyes. This value is not only exhibited as tangible assets, but the accumulation of knowledge and experience in the culture-laden milieu is also central to the notion of heritage (Falser, 2015). Such intangible elements have found their way into international discussions in recent years (Vecco, 2010). Heritage cities, as living spaces, also embrace a cultural heritage inseparable from local communities, and in a broader perspective, from the whole of humanity. This perspective is central to the creation of World Heritage Sites (WHSs) seeking to protect the world’s heritage with Outstanding Universal Value under the umbrella of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1972). In this process, however, the heritage assets inscribed as WHSs are nominated by national governments which, upon inscription, become the primary entity responsible for safeguarding their integrity. The primary motivation for this research is the centralized governance structure in developing countries and how this affects the potential to achieve sustainability through tourism development. Turkey is an example of such a centralized system in regard to tourism and heritage management (Yüksel et al., 2005) which includes the WHSs. In Turkey, WHSs are not only effective tools to aid foreign policy (Atakuman, 2010) but are also integral to culture-driven tourism strategy (Ozturk & van Niekerk, 2014). Despite inconclusive evidence in the literature on the relationship between proliferation of tourism and WHS status (Jimura, 2011; Poria et al., 2013), Turkey’s proactive relationship with UNESCO may be interpreted as reaffirming the perceived linkage between WHS status and visitation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it