Key issues of epistemological approach on the principles of conservation and restoration of cultural heritage.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster proposes a theoretical reflection on the epistemology of heritage conservation and restoration. By definition, Epistemology, which belongs to Philosophy and focuses on the acquisition and authentication of knowledge, plays an essential role in the theoretical field of heritage conservation and restoration. It functions as an intellectual tool that facilitates the assimilation of new studies and allows us to reflect on the theory and practice of this discipline. Its usefulness lies in understanding andproposing alternative approaches or ways of interpreting the way in which cultural heritage is conservedor intervened, taking into account, both the object itself and the subjects that interact in this discipline. By reviewing the foundations that make up the corpus of conservation-restoration, we can analyse its soundness and thus debate, redefine and formulate it. That is, to study its peculiarities and to rethinkits theoretical lines. The epistemological construction in the field of conservation and restoration of the cultural heritage presents several challenges and some proposals for overcoming them, which we list below and which wewill discuss in depth in subsequent works: (1) The origin or starting point of the discipline as we know it today. (2) The method of monumental intervention as the basis for intervention on movable goods objects. (3) The importance of Brandian theories and new approaches to them. (4) The importance of the concept of heritage in relation to the object of the act of restoration. (5) More than a single method, the interdisciplinary character offers a sum of disciplines on the same object of study. (6) The search for amethod of its own, in which conservation-restoration is a mode of knowledge and a mode ofconsciousness. (7) The principle of reproducibility of the scientific method. (8) The concept of the restorable object as a unit of knowledge. (9) The restorative act. (10) The interrelation of theory andpractice. (11) The concept of the resignification of the restorative act. In conclusion, the present work aims to reflect on and offer a series of theoretical aspects necessary for the research and profession of conservation-restoration in the 21st century. References Felliu Franch, J. (2014). Propuestas para una epistemología del patrimonio. Devenir Revista de estudios sobre patrimonio edificado, 1(2), 10-26. https://doi.org/10.21754/devenir.v1i2.233 Mazzocchi, F. (2022). Diving Deeper into the Concept of ‘Cultural Heritage’and Its Relationship with EpistemicDiversity. Social Epistemology, 36(3), 393-406. Disponible en https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2021.2023682 Curthoys, L., Cuthbertson, B., & Clark, J. (2012). Community story circles: An opportunity to rethink the epistemological approach to heritage interpretive planning. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 17,173-187. Disponible en https://cjee.lakeheadu.ca/article/view/1105 Peters Núñez, T. (2020). Sociología (s) del arte y de las políticas culturales. Ediciones Metales Pesados. Sánchez Hernández, A. A. (2003). Epistemología en la conservación del patrimonio edificado. Diseño y Sociedad, (15), 46-50. Disponible en https://disenoysociedadojs.xoc.uam.mx/index.php/disenoysociedad/article/view/205 Vega Cárdenas,A. (2017) ¿Es la restauración una disciplina patrimonial? Notas acerca de un cambio de paradigma. Conserva. Chile:Editorial Conserva CNCR, 22, 7-21. Disponible en: https://www.cncr.gob.cl/sites/www.cncr.gob.cl/files/images/articles-85256_archivo_05.pdf Vega Cárdenas,A.(2011) Restauration Epistmologique. CeROArt, 6. Disponible en: http://ceroart.revues.org/2120
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".