MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344108340 · doi:10.3846/mla.2016.866

APPEARANCE PRINCIPLES OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS IN THE CITY CENTER: VISUAL EFECT TO HISTORICAL HERITAGE, REGULATION PROPOSALS / AUKŠTYBINIŲ PASTATŲ MIESTO CENTRE ATSIRADIMO PRINCIPAI: VIZUALINIS POVEIKIS ISTORINIAM PAVELDUI, REGLAMENTAVIMO SIŪLYMAI

2016· article· en· W2344108340 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMokslas - Lietuvos ateitis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Development and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultural heritagePoliticsUrban planningRepresentation (politics)HistoryArchitectural engineeringPolitical scienceArchaeologyCivil engineeringEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High rise buildings is the phenomenon of XXI century, the expression of city’s economic and political power. This is the reflection of contemporary, modern and attractive city. Very often high rise buildings, who are characterized by a unique morphology, the parameters of high, density and intensity, are built near the historic center areas and cause irreversible visual impact on the historic sites, fundamentally altering the silhouette of the city. As a result, new problems and challenges appear. In this article the evolution of high rise buildings according to London, Jerusalem, Ottawa, Vilnius cities examples is analysed, the latest methodological principles which are applicable to control the development of high-rise buildings in the central parts of the city, while providing preservation and representation of cultural heritage are discussed. The latest computer technologies which are applied in urban regulations are presented. In case of Lithuania, high-rise building spatial development, general, spatial planning documents, urban design concepts, and monitoring of virtual city panoramas are reviewed. Comparative analysis in order to find out the essential methodological differences between cities regulation systems is done. Aukštybiniai pastatai – XXI a. fenomenas, miestų ekonominės, politinės galios išraiška. Tai šiuolaikinio, modernaus ir patrauklaus miesto atspindys. Labai dažnai aukštybinis užstatymas, pasižymintis savita morfologija, aukščio ir tūrio parametrais, dideliu užstatymo tankiu ir intensyvumu, atsiranda istorinių centrų prieigose, sukeldamas negrįžtamą vizualinį poveikį istoriniam paveldui, iš esmės pakeisdamas miesto siluetą. Dėl to atsiranda naujų problemų ir uždavinių. Straipsnyje nagrinėjama aukštybinių pastatų reglamentavimo evoliucija pagal Londono, Jeruzalės, Otavos ir Vilniaus miestų pavyzdį. Norint suvaldyti aukštybinių pastatų plėtrą šių miestų centrinėse dalyse, taikomi naujausi metodologiniai principai, numatant išsaugoti ir reprezentuoti ir kultūros paveldo objektus. Aptariamos naujausių kompiuterinių technologijų taikymo galimybės reglamentuojant miestus. Lietuvos atveju apžvelgiama Vilniaus miesto aukštybinių pastatų statybos raida, bendrojo, specialiojo planavimo dokumentai, parengtos koncepcijos, virtualių miesto panoramų monitoringas. Atliekama lyginamoji analizė, norint išsiaiškinti esminius metodologijų ir reglamentavimo skirtumus miestuose.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.250 · 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