MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W152197982 · doi:10.5632/jila.67.369

The Characteristics of Watercourses Systems Described in the Old Plans of Castle town Matsushiro

2004· article· en· W152197982 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kunihiro SASAKI, Miwa YOKOYA, Takashi OYA

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban and spatial planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)Quarter (Canadian coin)ArchaeologyOld townGeographyTown planningHydrology (agriculture)Civil engineeringUrban planningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Matsushiro, castle town build in Edo era (1600-1867), is known by the water courses systems which flow from the pond of garden to garden pond of neighbor in the town. They are called Garden Water Courses. In Matsushiro, there are about 10 plans of this castle town drawn in Edo era. And, on the 4 of them, the watercourses systems are described. This study aims to clear the formation and the characteristics of these watercourses systems and their classification. As a result, on the 4 plans, probably drawn in the 18 century, the water courses are marked in all town area, except one quarter, Tonomachi. And as the town area spread, the number of springs was increased, and the watercourses were extended. In another kind of plan in this era, called Watercourses plan, the watercourses system at Tonomachi is described in detail, included the Garden watercourses. Consequently, the watercourses system became clear throughout Matsushiro. And the classification of watercourses needs to be reconsidered.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Japanese Institute of Landscape ArchitectureSame topicUrban and spatial planningFrench-language works237,207