Jurisdictional capacity and landscape heritage : a case study of Malta and Gozo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amongst the citizens of the Mediterranean archipelagic state of Malta, the current broad understanding of landscape as heritage is that it is a key component of the tourism industry but somewhat dead and alien to daily modern life. In its material expression, heritage is tolerable and acceptable as long as it is functional; highly appreciated if appropriated as a private good; but insufferable if it clashes with private and individual interests, foremost amongst which is construction. Moreover, the relationship of the Maltese with the past is also disengaged, elusive and uncertain: they remain bereft of a unifying national consciousness that includes some general agreement about the salient features of their own history, thanks in part to a fierce, political factionalism. And yet, this paper argues that the Maltese may be energized to develop a better appreciation for their island and its past, if a stronger sense of national identity, and a ‘progressive sense of place’ are introduced. This would appear much more feasible on the smaller island of Gozo than on the main island of Malta. A virtuous cycle could develop between a stronger sense of pride in local landscape heritage as a working, living culture which in turn fosters sustainable development, both of these being driven by a securing and flexing of a stronger jurisdictional capacity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".