A Study on the Construction of Main Sanctuary of Dogapsa Temple -Focused on Establishing Bay of columns and Setback Technique in Upper Stories of Traditional Architecture with Multi Roof-
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of examining the architectural features and changes of the main building of Dogapsa temple which is multi roofs wooden structure are as follows. The passage comparing 'Dogapsa' of >, account of Lee Ha Gon's trip as the literature showing the appearance of Dogapsa temple in the early 18th century to Borimsa through verse of 'Dutacho' was noticeable. Dogapsa temple at Yeongam was distant over 100 ri from Borimsa temple at Jangheung and it was considered that there were many temples at Mt. Wolchul, Yeongam and there were also many temples to be comparable with it. But, Dogapsa temple was compared to Borimsa temple because verses 'many-storied building is high and immense' of 'Dogapsa' at > and 'Dogapsa is lower than Borimsa at Jangheung' at 'Dutacho' of > were interpreted as the existence of multi roofs Buddhist temple which had something in common with Dogapsa and Borimsa and was comparable to them. According to existing materials, it was assumed that the main building of Dogapsa was burnt through the Japanese invasion of Korea in the 52nd year of the sexagenary cycle (Eulmyooebyeon, 1555) and Jungyujaeran (1597), but record of major history of the main buildings of Dogapsa and Borimsa indicated that multi roofs wooden structure of the two temples were built at the same period. Since multi roofs wooden structure of main building of Borimsa was rebuilt in 1692, these buildings existed from the early 18th century to middle 18th century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it