La dimension collective du patrimoine culturel : la nature et les prérogatives des acteurs du collectif – Perspectives de droit belge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The protection of our cultural heritage is not just the preserve of the State and of owners, but also concerns individuals, citizens, collectivities and communities.This article examines this collective dimension of heritage, often underestimated in the case of tangible material heritage.Our initial focus will be on Belgian law.The nature of the temporally and spatially varied concept that is the "collective" or "collective actors" is first explored.The rights of these collective actors under the law are then examined.Two different types of rights can be distinguished: rights to cultural heritage (collective access, use and enjoyment), on the one hand; and interest in cultural heritage (conservation and transmission of the protected heritage) on the other hand.Collective actors rely on the fundamental right of people to their cultural heritage.The effectiveness of this right is, however, limited.Furthermore, as holders of a cultural interest, collective actors help to protect the cultural heritage, notably by exercising procedural rights to participate.However, the rules regarding the admissibility of actions often limit access to justice for these collective actors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".