Modern heritage and housing renovation: Policy development and practical experiences from Gothenburg, Sweden
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
Post-war housing stocks have been in focus for modernisation and transformation since the 1980s. Technical deficiencies and social problems related to exclusion and segregation have been arguments for investments. The architecture has been seen as part of the problem and alterations to its character have been important in finding solutions. Lately, policy for energy efficient renovation and decarbonisation of the housing sector has put the modern housing stock in focus again. With reference to the lack of common appreciation and understanding of the historical and cultural value of the post-war housing, this paper discusses current policy and its implementation. The paper begins by looking at Gothenburg, the second largest city in Sweden. The development of a Modern Historical Environment program is presented with its application in three examples of housing. These cases exemplify the opportunities and consequences of modernisation and energy renovation on modern heritage. The designation of modern built heritage differs from the designation of older constructions due to its scale and volume. Designating an object refers, on the one hand, to recognising an example of a specific building type and construction methods and, on the other, to its socio-historical context. Thus, both tangible and intangible values are acknowledged. Modern heritage is characterised by its resilience to alterations and allows layers of change to be included, informing about historical events.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it