The shift of paradigm when religious art works became heritage: the dilemma of material vs immaterial significance : an overview of Portuguese reliquaries and mural paintings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We entered the twenty-first century with new perspectives on the concept, contents and meaning of “cultural heritage”. By changing the focus of conservation heritage from material to intangible aspects, the theoretical debate brought a new vision and new challenges on its conservation. The 1989 Code of Ethics of the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) defined “cultural property” as those objects having “cultural or religious significance” assuming their communicative function, as does the American Institute for Conservation (AIC). In this sense, the “objects” (and here we use the term defined by Barbara Applebaum) do not matter for what they are (materiality - historical or artistic truths), but for their meaning, and their usefulness and communicative functions. Thus, being the cause of the symbolic value attached to them by the subject(s). This clearly refers to the immaterial or intangible aspects of heritage (Muñoz Viñas, 2003). It tells us that the immaterial aspects should be incorporated in conservation issues. But how do we keep the intangible aspects of an object that, at a certain time of its life, lost their function and significance for which was produced? In this poster we dicuss the "patrimonialization" procesess of religious art (reliquaries and mural paintings) removed from the cult or even from religious spaces.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".