Revitalizing Urban Heritage for Tourism Development: A Case Study of Baghdad's Old City Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heritage is widely recognized as one of the key expressions of civilizations, acting as a conduit for customs, traditions, and human values.The revitalization and development of certain tourist sites are deeply intertwined with heritage and archaeological elements, particularly those bearing historical significance or associated with specific events.The aim is to promote and thereby invigorate these sites.Certain urban treatments and their extrapolations are considered attractive and supportive factors for the revitalization of tourism, designed with a view to their application within the local context.This research aims to spotlight the center of the old city of Baghdad, highlighting its most significant heritage monuments of historical and social value.It seeks to identify the potential factors and essential elements for the success of these sites, with the goal of transforming them into appealing tourist points for both local and international tourism.This endeavor is intended to stimulate the tourism industry and serve as a central axis for the development of the city center at large.The research adopts a descriptive analytical approach in order to gather and analyze information.It employs a comprehensive framework for local sites, incorporating contemporary urban treatments that activate tourism and emphasize the identity of the place.The research concluded that there are three beneficial components to revitalizing urban tourism effectively towards enhancing the tourism product in heritage tourism: creativity, innovation, and leadership.A case study was conducted on Al-Mutanabbi Street, demonstrating how it is possible to activate the tourism product by utilizing these three components.These elements work in tandem to ensure the success of the initiative locally, and subsequently, globally.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".