Geological World Heritage: a revised global framework for the application of criterion (viii) of the World Heritage Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, IUCN published a report entitled Geological World Heritage: A Global Framework (Dingwall et al., 2005). The aim of that report was to discuss and advise on the role of the World Heritage Convention in recognising and protecting geological and geomorphological heritage. The aim of the present report is to fully revise and update the 2005 report and to look at the potential impact of the new UNESCO Global Geopark designation on future inscriptions to the World Heritage List under criterion (viii). This aim has been achieved through a thorough review of the 2005 report, and in particular the thematic approach to geology that the report used. This has led to the proposal of a rationalised set of 11 themes to guide the application of criterion (viii). This report also examines the processes of comparative analysis and questions of site integrity in relation to properties listed for geological and geomorphological values.
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 | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".