Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural heritage is a Western phenomenon that is rooted within European traditions of museology. The designation, preservation, and protection of certain histories inevitably results in the exclusion of others. Heritage is therefore a contested space that involves issues of whose heritage is important enough to be displayed. During the last thirty years, the UNESCO's World Heritage Convention [WHC] has become a global standard in defining cultural heritage. Nonetheless, criticism has emerged from the WHC's members of the developing world who have concerns about their under-representation on the World Heritage List. This lack of inclusion of non-Western peoples inevitably stems from the elitist attitudes of Eurocentric experts that favour Western heritage sites. Through the application of discourse analysis on a number of UNESCO documents concerning the WHC and cultural heritage between 1992 and 2002, this study assesses the influence of WHC experts and experts from other organizations. Research results point to WHC policy shifts from its experts that emphasize the greater inclusion of non-Western sites over the last decade. However, at the same time the documents also indicate the infringement of other organizations through the encouragement of partnerships by UNESCO. Other experts from non-governmental organizations and the private sector now have influence over the shaping of a globalized cultural heritage. Consequently, the WHC is transforming from a protector of heritage to a promoter of heritage tourism development.Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2004 .M36. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 43-01, page: 0070. Adviser: Suzan Ilcan. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2004.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".