Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development: A Legal Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preserving heritage amid rapid urbanization is pivotal to sustainable development. Heritage sites reflect cultural narratives, but urban expansion often results in their neglect or demolition. Striking a balance between development and safeguarding cultural heritage poses a complex challenge for policymakers and urban planners. The paper explores the intersection between cultural pasts and urban histories relating to the gentrification, heritage and cities with forces of globalisation and legal framework. The paper will further examine achieving harmony between progress and preservation of culture which necessitates a holistic approach that values both the economic vitality of cities and their cultural heritage and the challenges of urban development. Drawing insights from cultural pasts becomes crucial for crafting sustainable, inclusive, and culturally vibrant urban futures. The researchers plan to analyse the laws relating to protection of cultural heritage in India and some select countries. The researchers shall analyse the strategies employed in India and compare the best practices prevalent in other countries. To summarise the researchers shall: Compare the laws relating to preservation of cultural pasts and urban histories. To look into the harmonisation of Heritage preservation and sustainable development through effective legal framework .
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".