Sectional Analysis of Pendentive Dome Mosques During Ottoman Era ANALYSE SECTIONNELLE DES MOSQUÉES À DÔME PENDENTIF PENDANT L'ÉPOQUE OTTOMANE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyses types of pendentive dome mosques based on their variations from sectional view of documented drawings. The scope of this study is limited to the mosques constructed in Ottoman period which refers to the pendentive dome mosque architecture. The methodology applies descriptive analysis to classify its variation. This analysis takes into account that the main dome plays important role in classifying the variation. There are 51 mosques selected for the case studies. The study found that five types of the pendentive dome mosques can be identified accordingly. The number, position and organization of the dome design become the determining factors that influence the categories. The analysis also finds that all main domes share similar position located at the center of the prayer hall. The number of main domes comprises two and three units in the third category and it has more than three units in fourth category whereas the number of main dome is not more than one unit in other categories. The dome with higher rank of category show higher quality in terms of aesthetical value leading to visual feeling of domination in section view. In overall, the rank of the mosque’s category besides corresponds to the level of its dome organization. The mosques in the higher ranked categories have more elaborated dome organization. This fits well with the logic of the hierarchy of importance to the corresponding category. Keyword: pendentive dome; section; mosque; Ottoman era; architectureResume: Cette etude analyse les types de mosquees a dome pendentif en fonction de leurs variations a partir d'une vue sectionnelle des dessins documentes. La portee de cette etude est limitee aux mosquees construites dans la periode ottomane qui se refere a l'architecture de la mosquee a dome pendentif. La methode utilise l'analyse descriptive de classer sa variation. Cette analyse prend en compte que le dome principal joue un role important dans la classification de la variation. Il y a 51 mosquees selectionnees pour les etudes de cas. L'etude a revele que par consequent, cinq types de mosquees a dome pendentif pouvaient etre identifies. Le nombre, la position et l'organisation de la conception du dome deviennent les facteurs determinants qui influent sur les categories. L'analyse revele egalement que tous les domes principaux ont une position semblable qui est situee au centre de la salle de priere. Dans la troisieme categorie, le dome principal comporte deux et trois unites et il y a plus de trois unites dans la quatrieme categorie, alors que dans les autres categories, le nombre de dome principal ne depasse pas un. Le dome avec une categorie plus elevee montre une meilleure qualite en termes de valeur esthetique, conduisant a une sensation visuelle de domination. Dans l'ensemble, la categorie de la mosquee correspond au niveau de l'organisation de sa coupole. Les mosquees dans les categories superieures ont une organisation de coupole plus elaboree. Cela correspond bien a la logique de la hierarchie d'importance de la categorie correspondante.Mots-cles: dome pendentif; section; mosquee; epoque ottoman; architecture
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".