Contribution of Society and Owners of Buildings in Conservation of Architectural Heritage in the Arab World. (Case Study: “Rawdat Sudair, Saudi Arabia”)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to study the experience of local people in conserving architectural heritage and to benefit from that in preserving other historical sites. The need for this study is important because: Conservation of cultural and architectural heritage is not merely a government responsibility. The participation of local people in architectural conservation has many benefits. Motivating people to preserve architectural heritage is the responsibility of cultural and educational bodies. The study discusses historical architectural sites in Saudi Arabia. It concentrates on the inhabitants' and owners' role in the conservation of architectural heritage, since, nowadays most of the historical sites were taken care of by the governments. The tools of this research are better than the previous working methods, because, previous models neglect the inhabitants' and owners' role in the conservation of architectural heritage, Methods of this study include literature review, site visits, and interviews with inhabitants and visitors of the Case Study. It also includes site visits to similar historical sites, lectures highlighting the importance of architectural heritage to improve public awareness and to motivate people to take part in the conservation of architectural heritage. The study found conserving, preserving, or rehabilitating traditional buildings cannot be the duty of the owner only or the responsibility of the governments alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".