Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservators-restorers in the world are developing their activities following codes of professional ethics approved by conservation institutions and organizations. The Japan Society for the Conservation of Cultural Property established its code of ethics in 2008, but it hasnʼt published its own guidelines for practice yet. In the present study, the following international documents in the field of conservation are translated in Japanese and examined: 【1】 “The Conservator-Restorer. A Definition of the Profession” (1984) by the International Council of Museum, Committee for Conservation (ICOM-CC); 【2】 “Professional Guidelines (1): The Profession” (2002) by the European Confederation of Conservator-Restorersʼ Organization (E.C.C.O.); 【3】 The article titles of “Guidelines for Practice” (1994) by the American Institute for Conservation (AIC); 【4】 The article titles of “Guidance for Practice” (2000) by the Canadian Association for Conservation of Cultural Property (CAC) and the Canadian Association of Professional Conservators (CAPC); and 【5】 “Professional Standards and Judgement & Ethics” (2020) by the Institute of Conservation in the U.K. (ICON). 【1】 defines the newly appeared profession of conservators-restorers and explains the purpose, activities and significance. In the past forty years, the conservation field made a significant progress, and now the importance of their activities is recognized by society. The most recent document, 【5】, has emphasis on the assessment, management and valuing the context of cultural heritage. It also explains the capability of conservators-restorers in communication and judgment. Japanese versions of guidelines for practice should be made according to the circumstances in Japan, on which conservation treatments could be based as the standard. It will lead to further development of the field of conservation in terms of management, judgement and ethics.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".