MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416436486 · doi:10.1080/15583058.2025.2587223

Preserving the Past, Protecting the Future: A Framework for Sustainable Climate Adaptation of Heritage Structures

2025· article· en· W4416436486 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Napolitano, Mariapaola Riggio, Angela Curmi, Tiago Miguel Ferreira, Laura Pecchioli, Chiara Ferrero, Stacy Vallis, Xiaolin Chen, Qianli Dong, Giorgia Giardina, Maria Boștenaru Dan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Architectural Heritage · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsWeyerhauser (Canada)
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsClimate changeAdaptation (eye)Climate change adaptationCultural heritageSustainable developmentSustainability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change poses an unprecedented challenge to cultural heritage worldwide, requiring urgent adaptation strategies that reconcile preservation with resilience. This paper proposes a structured framework for assessing climate adaptation interventions in heritage structures, addressing the dual imperative of safeguarding authenticity while ensuring long-term sustainability and safety. Drawing on expertise from the International Scientific Committee on the Analysis and Restoration of Architectural Heritage Structures (Iscarsah), the study examines the multifaceted impacts of climate change on heritage sites and evaluates a spectrum of intervention strategies, ranging from minimal interference to more transformative measures. The proposed framework integrates key criteria, including conservation principles, resilience to climate hazards, environmental sustainability, technical feasibility, and sociocultural implications, thus enabling a comprehensive assessment of potential actions. The applicability of this framework is illustrated through case studies on flood and fire management, which demonstrate its capacity to guide decision-making in diverse heritage contexts. By systematically weighing the trade-offs between preservation, adaptation, and ecological impact, the framework provides a practical tool to structure dialogue between experts and stakeholders. In doing so, it fosters more holistic, interdisciplinary solutions for protecting cultural heritage in an era of climate uncertainty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.036
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Architectural HeritageSame topicConservation Techniques and StudiesFrench-language works237,207