MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587982656 · doi:10.3130/aija.70.259

BASIC STUDY ON DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR BEACH FACILITIES : A case of Shizuoka prefecture

2005· article· en· W2587982656 on OpenAlexaff
Kazukiyo Yamamoto, Kayo NISHIDA, Takeo Kondou, Hideaki Kanke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Architecture and Planning (Transactions of AIJ) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban and spatial planning
Canadian institutionsCOM DEV International
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUniversal designWork (physics)Development (topology)Space (punctuation)Architectural engineeringDesign elements and principlesBusinessComputer scienceEnvironmental planningEngineeringGeographySystems engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, Japan has been experiencing a conspicuous demographic increase of the elderly as well as the disabled. In response, the central and local governments have been promoting developing work incorporating the concept of barrier-free living space. Given the limitations of barrier-free development, there is increasing interest in development work using the new concept of a universal design. This Study focuses on such a universal design which is a development method for all, including the elderly and the disabled, and aims at understanding the present development state of beach facilities constructed by the administration based on the concept of a universal design and presenting basic materials which will be useful for the future development of facilities which adopt a universal design. The Study also aims at obtaining useful knowledge by clarifying several issues listed below and examining the desirable direction for the administration to develop beach facilities adopting a universal design and the possibility of developing the best facilities for users.

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)0.002
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Architecture and Planning (Transactions of AIJ)Same topicUrban and spatial planningFrench-language works237,207