Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Multifaith space is a new type of space that people of different religions, or none at all, are able to spend time for their contemplation. This space emerges as a response to a globalized world and thus Multifaith space has become a default form of religious space in public spaces such as airports and hospitals. But, its design is an open problem; there are thousands of religions in the world and each religion has its unique iconography, sanctuary geometry, or etcs. With this concerns, the purpose of this study is to provide a content that can be effectively applied as a design direction of the future Multifaith space on Korea through the classification of the type of space configuration of the Multifaith spaces and analysis of its characteristics. Ten projects which are fully designed to the whole architecture by designated architect with his contemplation?'MIT Chapel', 'Chapels Field, Brandeis University', 'The Chapels of Tri-Faith-Plaza', 'Abraham Ecumenical Centre', 'Setre Chapel', 'Multi-faith centre, University of Toronto', 'MRI New Multifaith Centre', 'Haus der Stille', 'House of One', 'Surrey Multifaith centre' ? are individually analyzed and classified into 3 types of space configuration. First type is integral space. Integral space type can be divided into two types; one that has specific directional geometry that certain common religions are targeted and the other is a space purposed to be non-denominational so that any religious people can visit and use it. Second type is separate spaces. Certain religions are targeted and designed for each religion. Each space cannot be occupied by different religions; however its purpo se is at admitting and respecting other religions and harmonizing through co-existing at landscape or one building. Third type is variable space. A single space can be either integral or separated space by partitions and shared with other religions. Another i s multiple spaces of which any religious group can rent and manipulate by its religious manner.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.013 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".