MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019632631 · doi:10.3130/jaabe.2.175

The Prospects of the ‘European Quarter’ in Cairo

2003· article· en· W2019632631 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Essam El-Shazly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture and Cultural Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Real estatePlan (archaeology)BusinessEuropean unionFunction (biology)StructuringFinanceEconomic policyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study elaborates on the historical 'Insurance Plan' in 1905 of Cairo's European Quarter in comparison to its present situation in 2002. The objective is to pointout the future strategy of conservation. The comparison is conducted according to the criteria of: 1) urban structure, 2) building ownership and function, and 3) insurance and taxation policies. The essence of the'Ezbekieh Plaza' in 1905 synthesized the physical with the socio-economic structuring between the existing Native Town and the new European Quarter. The Municipal regulations in 1905 created a unified proportions designed for each zone of the European Quarter with characteristic European landscapes. Meanwhile, the real-estate taxation imposed on the free market, and the covered maintenance of building items by the 'Insurance Plan' in 1905 worked effectively to sustain the functioning of the European colony. The nationalization policies since 1952, however, have forced the quarter to deteriorate through the 'Rent Control' policy and the lack of enforcing the function of historical buildings and open spaces. The conservation in 2002 has no socio-economic insurance or taxation, and buildings are redeveloped into different heights and façade characteristics due to the change of building regulations. The present changes are facilitated in the light of the overshadowed 'Insurance Plan' in 1952.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Asian Architecture and Building EngineeringSame topicArchitecture and Cultural InfluencesFrench-language works237,207