MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7039314789

Lost: Heritage Stock. The Heritage Property Act and Heritage Conservation in Downtown Halifax, Nova Scotia

2023· article· en· W7039314789 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownNova scotiaIndustrial heritageCultural heritage managementCultural heritage
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers heritage conservation in Halifax, examining the Heritage Property Act and its implementation. As one of the oldest cities in Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia was graced with an abundance of built heritage. However, historic properties have been disappearing at an alarming rate, with 41 per cent of potential heritage buildings in downtown Halifax, Nova Scotia having been demolished since 2009. This article argues that the current approach to heritage conservation in Halifax is nominally successful but consistently falls short of the spirit in which it was enacted. The Act performs well in specific situations, namely where the owners wish to receive heritage designation. Where owners refuse to register their properties, there is little the municipality can (or is willing) to do to protect heritage properties. The result is a death by attrition for much of the built heritage of the city.\nCet article traite de la conservation du patrimoine à Halifax, en examinant la Heritage Property Act et sa mise en œuvre. En tant que l’une des plus anciennes villes du Canada, Halifax (Nouvelle-Écosse) a été gratifiée d’un abondant patrimoine bâti. Cependant, les propriétés historiques disparaissent à un rythme alarmant, 41 % des bâtiments patrimoniaux potentiels du centre-ville d’Halifax ayant été démolis depuis 2009. Cet article soutient que l’approche actuelle de la conservation du patrimoine à Halifax est en principe efficace, mais qu’elle ne correspond pas toujours à l’esprit dans lequel elle a été adoptée. La Loi donne de bons résultats dans des situations spécifiques, à savoir lorsque les propriétaires souhaitent obtenir une désignation patrimoniale. Lorsque les propriétaires refusent d’enregistrer leurs biens, la municipalité ne peut (ou ne veut) pas faire grand-chose pour protéger les biens patrimoniaux. Le résultat est une mort par attrition pour une grande partie du patrimoine bâti de la ville

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation→French-language works237,207→