MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042884428 · doi:10.3130/jaabe.7.255

“Tube House” and “Neo Tube House” in Hanoi: A Comparative Study on Identity and Typology

2008· article· en· W2042884428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
To Kien

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVietnamese History and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseTypologyIdentity (music)Quarter (Canadian coin)Tube (container)SociologyAestheticsArchitectural engineeringHistoryArtEngineeringLinguisticsAnthropologyArchaeologyMechanical engineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among Hanoi’s different housing forms, the traditional “Tube house” in Hanoi’s Old Quarter (built before and in the19th century) and the modern “Street house” (built after the Vietnamese Economic Reform in 1986 and called the “Neo tube house” in this paper) are the 2 dwelling forms that have certain similarities as well as basic differences. Yet, they have never been compared in any previous study. Though the “Tube house“ has been extensively studied so far, there are still little-studied aspects such as identity and characteristics. Moreover, “Neo tube house”, despite its dominant appearance in contemporary urban fabrics of Vietnamese big cities, has not been adequately studied so far, though it was sometimes criticized in Vietnamese architectural and urban debates. Therefore, this paper aims to primarily study these 2 forms in terms of identity, characteristics and typology with my own pictorial proofs, and then interpret their relationship as well as compare them on those aspects to draw urban development lessons.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations30
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Asian Architecture and Building EngineeringSame topicVietnamese History and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207