Promoting health and wellbeing through building the relationship with build and cultural heritage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction For over two decades, much has been written about the role of heritage buildings and historic places on individual and societal well-being. Numerous manuscripts have been devoted to study the relationship between built and cultural heritage and well-being and to decrypt their mental and physical health benefits at the personal and societal levels. Other studies have focused on the diverse types of heritage experiences that enable these health benefits, ranging from perceptions, to the individual and societal engagements through exposure, protection and conservation of historic places and environment. Social benefits encompass enhancing of collective memories and identities, sharing experiences, social interaction, creative opportunities, etc. Objectives The objective of this research is to explore the relationship between personal and societal health and well-being, and cultural heritage. The main objective is to disclose international strategies and programs for assessing and promoting heritage-led wellbeing benefits. Methods We comprehensively reviewed the scientific literature using qualitative data-analysis methods to state, international frameworks for promoting heritage-led wellbeing benefits. Results Our bibliographic review revealed that there has been rising recognition that the conservation of cultural heritage is not just about the preservation of materials, but rather about safeguarding and sharing heritage for the improvement of people’s lives. According to the WHO, culture and cultural heritage are recognized as fundamental determinants of what makes personal and social lives meaningful. Consequently, many countries such as the UK and Canada, have developed people centred approaches achieved by local authorities as a means of ensuring inclusivity and diversity, so that heritage is able to contribute to people’s wellbeing. Politically, few agendas promoting wellbeing and engagement with the historic environment included guidelines of community-oriented projects and management systems that benefit people with building the relationship between people and place, while demonstrating the public value of the historic environment. Conclusions All professionals, at the architectural and urban level, as well as health and psychology level should have awareness about the concept of heritage-led wellbeing benefits and strategic views of the value of cultural heritage as process, as participation, as mechanism, as healing, as place and as environment to raise the planned positive effects by local authorities when promoting the perception of the role of cultural heritage in health and wellbeing. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".