Managing Scars of Terror in Norway’s Government Quarter and the Shifting Memory Values of VG ’s Newspaper Panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to UNESCO’s definition, heritage is “our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations”. While exemplary inclusive, it is hardly made out of concern for the fact that our legacy is becoming increasingly mixed and messy: melting glaciers, archipelagos of sea-borne debris, industrial wastelands, toxic residues in wildlife, food and humans. Actually, our legacy has become so conspicuously manifest that it has been claimed diagnostic of a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. While this palpable legacy has triggered debate within the heritage field, it has yet not led to any profound rethinking of heritage itself. Conceptualised only as a threat to heritage, not as heritage, the traditional understanding of heritage as an exclusive reserve cleansed of bad matter safely persists. This book takes a different position. It claims that the current clash between prevailing conceptions of heritage as something valued and thus worth saving, and a haunting and unruly past ignoring such work of purification, urges a reconsideration of strategies and rationales for how to deal with heritage. By precisely exposing heritage also to the masses of neglected and unwanted legacies we pass on and live with, it argues in favour of alternative, less anthropocentric and more ecologically adept heritage understandings. Based on a range of case studies, and their research backgrounds in fields such as archaeology, history, heritage studies and philosophy, the contributors explore possible outcomes of these understandings in a contemporary world increasingly haunted by its own unruly heritage.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".