MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156528782

지하공공보도시설내 지하도상가의 용도지침 설정

2007· article· ko· W2156528782 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
이강주

Bibliographic record

Venue대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Safety, and Science Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmenityOpenness to experienceOrder (exchange)GeographyComputer scienceBusinessPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to extract and present some reasonal and practical guidelines which are helpful to use determination and its organization of underground passage shops in Korea. To do this several researches are executed as follows. Firstly, define the public nature in underground public pedestrian facilities and set out some use determination principles-openness, amenity and image. Secondly, selection of cases. Canada and Japan are very advanced countries in developing underground commercial spaces with wide and systematic. Corresponding with Korean situation and well-designed cases are selected in these two countries to survey and analyse. Thirdly, survey of cases. Through literature, internet, and site visiting investigations, the physical characteristics and the use related contents of cases are examined. Fourthly, analysis of cases. In order to obtain objective and concrete results, an analytical framework is established. And the cases of Canada and Japan were analysed by it. Lastly, suggestion of use and its organizational ratio. On the basis of the results of analysis, to apply to underground passage shops in Korea, the proper uses and their appropriate organizational ratio are suggested.

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)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.349 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계Same topicEducation, Safety, and Science StudiesFrench-language works237,207