Revisiting heritage in the ocean: common heritage of [Hu]mankind, maritime heritage and beyond?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By zeroing in on the term 'heritage' in the most important international legal instrument on oceans – the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), this article explores how the concept of the Common Heritage of [Hu]mankind and maritime heritage are produced and deployed in the global legal project of ocean-ordering and the implications thereof. The Common Heritage of [Hu]mankind concept embodies and enacts a dominant resource-centric framing of the ocean. This framing prioritises and valorises the material and economic value of the deep seabed, thereby transmuting it into an oceanless exploitable common. The LOSC, with minimal cultural preoccupation, also conceptualises and confines maritime heritage within a narrow land-based and material-centric understanding of heritage that often prioritises state control and claims. This is because the LOSC is constrained and shaped both by the metaphysical, geographical, and legal tendency of ocean parcelisation and by the authorised heritage discourse that conditions how heritage is understood and practiced. We conclude by suggesting taking the Middle Passage as an analytical provocation, that is to recognise the mutually constitutive and constituting relationship between the Middle Passage and the (Atlantic) Ocean, to enable critical reflections and alternative perspectives on heritage-making in ocean environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".