Comparison of Physical Structure of Iran Traditional Neighborhoods Based on Living Center Theory of Christopher Alexander (Case Study: Haji and Kolapa Neighborhoods in Hamedan)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the way Christopher Alexander1 provides understanding and knowing order of nature, the pattern of living structures according to the concepts of totality and strong centers are paid attention to in 15 integrated features. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the physical totality of these two neighborhoods based on Alexander`s living center theory and its adaptability with architectural physics .This paper tries to answer following questions: What is the theory of living centers proposed by Alexander? Based on living center theory, how is the geometrical structure of traditional neighborhoods in Hamedan? How is the comparative study of structure of both neighborhoods based on Alexander`s theory? The results of study suggest that certain space as an essential feature of the theory of Alexander is not applicable with geometry structure of elements of the traditional neighborhoods of Hamadan. Comparison of geometry structure of the neighborhood and the characters of Alexander's theory pattern suggests that the most important role in the neighborhood for creating more life arises from strong centers, levels of Scale, boundaries, non-separateness, roughness, the void and contrast .The findings survey can use urban planners, urban designers and architectures to design new neighborhoods.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".