Effective Protection of Contemporary Heritage of Twentieth Century Architecture: The Case of Seville
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research addresses the effective protection of architecture \nbuilt last twentieth century as one of the main challenges of \nheritage preservation for the twenty-first century. At this time, the \nconcept of heritage is extensive, allowing us to consider this \ncomtemporary architecture also as part of the legacy of our cities. \nIn recent decades, the international heritage recognition and \nconservation of these buildings has been progressed. This fact has \nbeen made possible thanks to the record of twentieth-century \narchitecture, as well as the publication of some international \ncharters which have included recommendations about how to deal \nwith this heritage. In the Spanish case, protection has been usually \nprovided through the heritage catalogues including in urban plans. \nNevertheless, contemporary legacy usually has less recognition \nand protection than buildings from earlier times. Therefore, many \nbuildings have been demolished or extremely modified, losing their \ncultural heritage values consequently. So, it is necessary to articulate standards for the adequate preservation of this architecture \naccording to society's current needs but preserving its authenticity. \nThe research takes the Historic Settlement of Seville (Spain) study. \nIt is the second largest one in Europe, being characterised by the \nimportance and relevance of its heritage. Besides, it allows us to \nanalyse how the insertion of a considerable number of modern \nbuildings in a consolidated city has been.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it