CONSIDERATIONS ON BLOCK FORMATION AND HOUSE TYPES IN NAGAPATTINAM (TAMILNADU, INDIA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper intends to clarify block formation and house types of Nagapattinam, India, and analyze their transformation process. The research on which this paper is based is the further study of the project called 'Field Research on Origin, Transformation, Conversion and Conservation of Urban Space of Colonial Cities', which the major targets are Dutch colonial cities all over the world. Further to this project, comparing colonial cities in South Asia, in terms of spatial formation and transformation is the ambitious objective of this research. Another purpose is to elucidate the Dutch way of houses construction in their colonial cities, where in Nagapattinam, Dutch developed the form of town houses for high-density living. Nagapattinam was once a head quarter of Coromandel, one of five administrative districts laid by Dutch on South Asia. At present, Nagapattinam is still holding numerous town houses. This paper clarifies the spatial organization of Nagapattinam, by analyzing distribution pattern of its facilities and block formation, based on field surveys. At the last chapter, this paper focuses on house types of Nagapattinam identified according to their physical features and planning parameters. The transformation processes of these house types are also discussed. This paper suggests that construction of town houses in Nagapattinam were based on regional vernacular architecture and partly influenced by Dutch.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".