MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039330658 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v5n5p140

A Review of Malaysian Terraced House Design and the Tendency of Changing

2012· review· en· W2039330658 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nurdalila Saji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture and Cultural Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelocationArchitectural engineeringOriginalitySpace (punctuation)Architectural designBusinessIdentity (music)Adaptation (eye)House priceDistribution (mathematics)Operations managementMarketingComputer scienceSociologyGeographyArchitectureAestheticsEconomicsPsychologyEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction of terraced houses is the main contributor to the successful development of housing industry in Malaysia but illegal changes and modifications by buyers and occupants may diminish its original identity or characteristics. The physical adaptation and adjustment made by the occupants to fit their utilitarian needs could result in the extensive modification of the housing facilities and the relocation of spatial distribution. Since alteration and renovations are always done and made without proper control, terraced house in Malaysia has lost its originality. This paper provides literature reviews on housing modifications specifically in terms of design consideration and changes in design. It describes the relationship between human and their territory and space which then leads to changes in lifestyle and design. Finally, a conclusion is drawn on the effect of altering the appearance and the change of the original architectural character.

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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicArchitecture and Cultural InfluencesFrench-language works237,207