MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760706385 · doi:10.3968/9856

A Preliminary Study on Protection and Development of Traditional Chinese Form of Commercial Shops

2017· article· en· W2760706385 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ying‐Feng Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media and Visual Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInheritance (genetic algorithm)ChinaArchitectureExpression (computer science)AestheticsIdentity (music)Cultural heritageGlobalizationCultural inheritanceArchitectural engineeringSociologyBusinessHistoryEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceEngineeringLawArtComputer scienceLiteratureArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under today’s rapid globalization, protecting and inheriting cultural and regional identity has become the consensus of people. China, as the creator and leader of the oriental culture, has many cultural heritage that deserves to be protected by mankind. Among them, the traditional Chinese form of commercial shops is an important part of oriental cities. But with the tide of modern economic development and the change of buildings in modern cities, it is slowly disappearing. Therefore, how to protect, pass down and develop the technique of expression of traditional form of business environment and represent the aesthetics of oriental architecture is the responsibility of every city builder and protector. Yet, inheritance and development are not to simply copy traditional forms of commercial buildings, but to retain their outstanding traditional aesthetic elements with the principle of “promoting and discarding” and use them with modern technique of expression and decorative design, so that the buildings can reflect both rich traditional visual elements and contemporary aesthetics. This is the effective means combines protection and inheritance.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 topicDigital Media and Visual ArtFrench-language works237,207