Kintaikyo Bridge and the <i>Kakekae</i> Process: The Authenticity of Wooden Structures Beyond the Original Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kintaikyo Bridge is located in Iwakuni, Japan. Its structure comprises four stone piers supporting five timber spans. It was originally built in 1673; however, owing to the materials and techniques employed, its durability is inherently limited. Consequently, the wooden spans have been rebuilt many times through a process known as kakekae. The kakekae of Kintaikyo Bridge includes several measures to ensure that continuity in the design, structural system, and construction techniques is maintained. This paper analyses primary sources and technical reports published in Japanese to clarify the features of Kintaikyo Bridge and its kakekae process. In addition, it examines the question of the authenticity of Kintaikyo Bridge as a cultural heritage using the framework of the Nara Document. As a result of this analysis, it becomes clear that although none of its original timbers remain, the authenticity of Kintaikyo Bridge has been faithfully safeguarded by the way the kakekae process is conducted. The methodology proposed in this paper could serve as reference for other heritage sites where authenticity needs to be assessed beyond the criterion of original material. Especially, Kintaikyo Bridge could be a relevant example for other structures that have been handed down through traditional processes involving continuous renovation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".