MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136644242 · doi:10.5539/ass.v6n11p49

Health Factors in Islamic Perspectives and Its Relation to Sustainability with Case Study at Traditional Kampung Hulu Mosque, Malaysia

2010· article· en· W2136644242 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmad Sanusi Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicactivated carbon and charcoal
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Sains Malaysia
KeywordsRainwater harvestingRoofArchitectural engineeringSustainabilityNatural ventilationIslamCivil engineeringNatural (archaeology)EngineeringGeographyVentilation (architecture)ArchaeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of this study is to analyse how health consideration integrated to the traditional mosque design in Malaysia. A literature review is conducted to understand the definition of health based on Islamic perspectives. The purpose is to identify its sustainability and relationship to the traditional mosque design. The literature study identifies three primary factors on health in the mosque design associated with natural lighting, rainwater discharge and wall openings. The qualitative analysis comprises design on natural lighting related to sun shading and indirect lighting, rainwater discharge related to rainwater deflection and leakages; and wall openings related to natural cross air ventilation and stack effect. Traditional Mosque at Kampung Hulu, Malacca is selected for the case study. The analysis shows that pyramid roof and its overhangs, open serambi (veranda) area and the recessed wall with wall openings at the ground and roof levels become the principle of the traditional mosque design in relation to the health factors. The analysis however finds the weaknesses that the mosque design does not apply window and screen louvers in the construction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicactivated carbon and charcoalFrench-language works237,207