MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168807322

전통목조건축물의 중도리 위치에 관한 연구

2011· article· ko· W2168807322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
서효원, 전봉희

Bibliographic record

Venue大韓建築學會論文集 : Journal of the architectural institute of Korea : Planning & design / 計劃系 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoofArchitectureQuarter (Canadian coin)Position (finance)Architectural engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringGeologyGeographyArchaeologyBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In traditional Korean wooden buildings, purlins(dori) are longitudinal structural members which deliver load of roof to beams and columns. Among them, mid-purlins(jung-dori) determine the slope of sectional curve of the roof and at the same time closely engage with interior layout of the building. This study aims to investigate various factors affecting the position of mid-purlins as well as historic changes of the position itself and their result in the structure and design of the building, focusing on the 5-purlin type roof structure, which is the most common in traditional Korean wooden architecture. In general, mid-purlins are horizontally located at the points ranging from a quarter to one-third of the whole transverse building length inwards both from the front and back outer columns. What takes attention is that there is a sharp distinction in the position of mid-purlins between buildings built before 16th century and those built after 17th century. Moreover theses change is closely related with several unique compositional techniques in the traditional wooden architecture of the late Joseon dynast.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.108 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue大韓建築學會論文集 : Journal of the architectural institute of Korea : Planning & design / 計劃系Same topicCultural and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207