MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608090897 · doi:10.3968/9446

Analysis of Interior and Exterior Environment Construction of Library Building and Rationalization Proposal

2017· article· en· W2608090897 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yajun Zhang, Ning Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRationalization (economics)PaceInterior designArchitectural engineeringFunction (biology)EngineeringAtmosphere (unit)Civil engineeringConstruction engineeringComputer scienceManagementGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With increasingly fierce social competition, people need to constantly acquire knowledge to keep pace with the times. Thus, more and more people to resort to the library for learning, which is bound to have a huge impact on the construction and development of the library. To better reflect the function of the library, and make library provide more services, it is needed to systematically research the construction of interior and exterior environment of the library building in both reconstruction and expansion projects in the library. In this paper, the three major principles which should be followed in the construction of interior and exterior environment of the library building, namely perfect combination of applicability and artistry, giving prominence to culture and atmosphere, and green design and sustainable development. Secondly, countermeasures for problems (lack of parking space, design of the rest room, and so on) in the process of interior and exterior environment construction of a library building are put forward. Besides, deep discussions on measures for interior and exterior environment construction of a library building also are made. Thus, this paper is of certain reference value.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207