Collaborative Mapping as a Tool for Citizen Participation: A Case of Cultural Heritage Management in Rural Areas
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
The role of citizens in the construction of knowledge is undergoing a clear transformation from a passive position, as mere observers and/or receivers, to an increasingly participatory role. This issue, which is directly related to governance policies as well as to the ICT revolution, can be seen in the field of cultural heritage and particularly architectural heritage management. The present paper aims to generate methodologies to involve citizens as active agents who must be involved in a real way in decision making concerning the protection and enhancement of cultural heritage. The results present the creation of a rural heritage interactive cartographic viewer as a collaborative mapping tool. The conclusions drawn position the citizens of rural, dispersed, or vulnerable areas as informers and builders of knowledge about the cultural and architectural heritage of their environment in terms of citizen science. At the same time, it strengthens the development of innovation strategies in the intervention, management, and communication of the existing dispersed heritage in rural areas.
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