The Importance of Plan Unit Design with Reference to Pedentive Dome Mosque Architecture in Early Ottoman Period in Balkan Region and Anatolia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyses development of pedentive dome plan unit design in Ottoman mosques built from 13th to 15th centuries (Early Ottoman Period). An expansion of new territories ruled under Ottoman Empire in Eastern Europe (Balkan Region) and Anatolia yields an influence of Turkish mosque style to the regional architecture. The Ottoman rulers had granted construction of many new mosques to cope with increasing number of the Muslim population. There are many studies about Ottoman mosque architecture done before but these studies fall short in terms of studying the development in plan unit design and its influence to the form of the mosques as a whole. This research aims to study evolution of the plan design to the extent to which it affects the plan layout. The study applies qualitative method of analysis. The survey has conducted over 51 mosques in this region, and it analyses possible variations of the evolution to the plan designs which are derived from pedentive dome mosque style. The study finds that there are six categories of the plan designs which are single dome plan, earring dome plan, multiple dome plan, duplication dome plan, courtyard dome plan and earring-courtyard dome plan. Primary domes, secondary domes and semi-domes are identified as the factors which influence variations of the plan units. Pedentive dome mosque architecture in this period is derived from six plan designs which typify development of the mosque architecture in Ottoman Empire.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".