The Influence of Cultural Heritage Digitalization on the Public Aesthetics – A Case Study of the Dunhuang Mogao Grottoes
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 applications of digital technology in cultural heritage have subtly and profoundly influenced the breadth and depth of public aesthetics. The objective of the study is to explore how diverse digital technologies impact public aesthetics, taking the digital dissemination and applications of Dunhuang's Mogao Grottoes as an example. Also, it anticipates the potential influence on public aesthetics of the ongoing evolution of technology inc. AIGC and its integration with cultural heritage. The results of the study revealed that digitalization applied in cultural heritage enhances the public aesthetics, while under the rapid development of technology, there are potential concerns of the aesthetic homogeneity, preconceived notions, and the over-emphasis on entertainment value. Future generations might reduce appreciation for authentic, in-person experiences and lead to fixed stereotypes of cultural heritage. Therefore, the thoughtful and balanced integration could better foster the public aesthetics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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