A Synthesis of Traditional Knowledge Used in the Construction and Restoration of Thai Buddhist Ubosot in Bangkok and Its Surrounding Provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative investigation synthesises the use of traditional knowledge in the architecture of Thai Buddhist temples. The focus of this paper is on the main worship hall of the temple, the ubosot. The research was carried out between August 2010 and March 2013 using data collection tools of interview, observation, focus group discussion and workshop. The findings show that current restoration projects neglect traditional knowledge of ubosot construction in favour of more modern techniques. Six problems with traditional knowledge in this field were identified: lack of inheritance, insufficient funds, poor budget management, skilled labour shortages, lack of historical records and no standardisation. This paper synthesises traditional knowledge of ubosot construction and outlines five steps for the successful application of traditional knowledge in the creation and restoration of ubosot: a) planning; b) creation and restoration using traditional methods and processes; c) evaluation of construction and restoration; d) correction and improvement; e) recording of results for use as a future guide and model. These results can be used as a model for future restoration projects in Bangkok and beyond.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".