MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052696768

‘Showing it off’: The Potential for the use of Underwater Heritage Parks to Present In-situ Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Netherlands

2020· dissertation· en· W7052696768 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLeiden Repository (Leiden University) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron Lasers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultural heritageContext (archaeology)UnderwaterCultural heritage managementIndustrial heritageSustainability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the public, underwater heritage parks amalgamate the thrill of sports diving with the\neducational enjoyment of a museum. Consequently, underwater heritage parks have been a\npopular medium to present in-situ underwater cultural heritage (UCH) in countries, such as\nAustralia, the UK, Finland, Sweden, Canada and the US. However, this method to present insitu UCH is not used in the Netherlands. Within the context of the Dutch government’s\nrecent decision to ratify the Faro Convention (Council of Europe 2005) and the growing blue\ntourism economy and diving community within the country, this thesis assesses the\neffectiveness of underwater heritage parks and explores the plausibility of utilising this\napproach within the Netherlands. Through an analysis of literature and case studies\npertaining to the global use of underwater heritage parks, this thesis first analyses the\nchallenges and opportunities that underwater heritage parks present for heritage\nmanagement and determines that the challenges can be mitigated. This makes underwater\nheritage parks an effective tool for heritage management. However, this also highlights a\nneed to explore the challenges and opportunities that underwater heritage parks potentially\nbring nearby residents. Through an analysis of the case study of the Museum of Underwater\nArt, Australia, this thesis found that underwater heritage parks can bring societal,\nenvironmental, and economic benefits to the communities that they are located nearby.\nThis can be achieved sustainably when mitigating the harmful impacts of heritage tourism\nthrough working with the ongoing consent of nearby residents, providing honest and\npositive experiences for tourists, and competitiveness cluster strategies. However, all of this\ncan only be accomplished when the sustainability of the UCH resources of an underwater\nheritage park can be ensured. Through an analysis of case studies in Croatia, Sweden and\nFinland, this thesis determines that sustainable diver access can be achieved through\nprotective methods of site protection, which use prohibitive equipment or create tour\nguides through commercial dive operators. However, sustainable access can also be\nachieved through admissive methods of site protection, which allow unrestricted access but\nprotect UCH through community stewardship, legislation, or initiatives that have\nsuccessfully changed attitudes towards UCH. However, changing attitudes towards UCH also\nnecessitates reaching the non-diving community. This thesis explores how underwater\nheritage parks have accomplished this and through the case study of Fathom Five Marine\nParks, Canada, states that a multi-faceted approach that provides a broad range of ways to\ninteract with UCH is most effective. Having established the effectiveness of underwater\nheritage parks and the best methods to provide access to UCH and ensure the sustainability\nof the resource, this thesis then assesses where this approach could be utilised within the\nNetherlands. Through building on O’Brien and colleagues (2011, 87) matrices of activities\nthat contradict cultural heritage conservation, based from Ehler and Douvere (2009, 58-59),\nthis thesis found that underwater heritage parks could present in-situ UCH at Cuijk,\nEuropoort, Grevelingen, Hellevoetsluis, IJsselmeer, Maasdriel, Oostvoornse Meer, and the\nWadden Sea.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeiden Repository (Leiden University)Same topicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron LasersFrench-language works237,207