Protecting Portable Heritage during War: A Comparative Examination of the Approaches in Italy during World War Two and in Ukraine during the Russian Invasion of 2022
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
In response to the urgent necessity of protecting cultural heritage in Ukraine in the wake of the Russian invasion, this article explores the approaches recently adopted in Ukraine to safeguard portable objects by providing an extended comparison with the methods used in Italy during World War Two. Three components of the procedure for protecting moveable objects are investigated: preliminary planning through the creation of lists of museum collections to determine priorities for safeguarding; the selection and preparation of storage deposits to shelter the objects; and the work of packing and moving boxed items to the deposits. Attention also is given to the obstacles encountered during WWII in Italy that hampered the protection of moveable heritage. The purpose is to probe whether the same problems have been met in Ukraine and if they have been circumvented or not. While the difficulty of protecting heritage during conflict is understood, even in the case of portable heritage materials, this comparison of recent methods in Ukraine to the work in Italy in the early 1940s highlights the continued use of traditional methods, albeit with adaptations, because they are effective. However, some of the same obstacles also have persisted, suggesting the potential to search for better solutions. Emphasis is placed on the abundant cultural holdings in religious institutions, which may fall outside the protective compass of national heritage initiatives and, therefore, be particularly vulnerable during war. This study also acknowledges some of the novel characteristics of the protection of moveable heritage in Ukraine and notes the impressive help that is being offered in innovative ways by heritage agencies and organizations outside the country.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it