A New Insight into Design Approach with Focus to Architect-Client Relationship
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies stress cooperation between architects and clients in which knowledge and experiences are sharedin order to reach synergy. Thus, a process approach is required to make the latent knowledge and intention of theclient explicit, efficiently connecting him/her to the architect. However, little attention has been given tosocio-technical features of this relationship within architectural design process. This study aims to present anapproach with collaborative, communicative and innovative features, which develop client involvement,information sharing and design-supporting tools within architectural design process. A literature survey has beenconducted to investigate the characteristics of the communication process, architectural design process,design-supporting tools and means, method and concept of virtualization in design and communication. Finally,this study concluded by integrating the concept of virtualization and virtual reality tools into communication anddesign process. A new design approach will be generated, which will satisfy both architect and client, as well asdesign outcomes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it