Heritage Preservation Easements,\nUrban Property, and Heritage Law:\nExploring Canadian Common Law\nAnd Civil Law Tools for Responding\nTo International Cultural\nPreservation Frameworks for Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article will first situate cultural heritage preservation in the urban context through an overview of notions of outstanding universal value, the role of cities in cultural heritage and municipal archaeology generally, paths toward the equitable and sustainable development of cities, and inclusive urban cultural rights in the context of cultural heritage where these appear within international law and guiding international legal frameworks for the protection of cultural heritage. The article will also discuss the notion of the ‘public good’ as it is applied within heritage preservation decisions and will also address the balancing of public and private interests in built heritage preservation. This article will further turn to the broad legal framework of cultural heritage protection for built spaces in Canada before narrowing in on the common law concept of a heritage easement agreement – notably, how it is and can be deployed in Canada – and the civil law conservation servitude as it is available in the Civil Code of Quebec.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".