MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807672420

ARSITEKTUR ISLAM ATAU ARSITEKTUR ISLAMI?

2011· article· id· W2807672420 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture and Cultural Influences
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslamArtGeographyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRAK. Diskusi dan kajian tentang arsitektur Islam sudah sedemikian banyak, terutama di kalangan akademisi dan praktisi. Sebagian diskusi tersebut memfokuskan pada aspek bentuk, langgam, peninggalan historis dan hal-hal lain yang bersifat fisik yang dianggap merupakan bagian dari kebudayaan umat muslim. Sementara itu sebagian kalangan merasa bahwa sesungguhnya Islam tidak cukup hanya diwujudkan dengan aspek fisik semata. Saat ini semakin berkembang wacana tentang arsitektur islam yang lebih mengedepankan nilai-nilai keislaman daripada tipologi fisik produk arsitektur. Di dalam pengertian ini, penulis menyebutnya sebagai arsitektur islami. Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk menggali sejauh mana perbedaan antara kedua pemikiran tentang arsitektur Islam dan arsitektur Islami, dan mengetahui apa sajakah aspek yang berpengaruh dalam perencanaan produk arsitektur yang islami, melalui kajian terhadap berbagai sumber berupa Al Qur’an dan hadits, buku, jurnal, dan beberapa artikel, di samping analisis pemikiran penulis sendiri. Dari kajian tersebut ditemukan bahwa bahasan tentang arsitektur islam sangat berbeda dengan arsitektur islami. Arsitektur islam menekankan tentang aspek fisik sebuah lingkungan binaan, sedangkan arsitektur islami lebih mengedepankan pada nilai-nilai keislaman yang bersumberkan pada Al Quran dan Hadits atau sunnah Rasulullah. Aspek dari arsitektur islami yang perlu untuk dikembangkan adalah efisensi, egaliter, privasi, kearifan lokal. Kata kunci : arsitektur islam, arsitektur islami, nilai Islam ABSTRACT. It has been regarded, there are so many discussion and study of Islamic architecture, particularly among academics and practitioners. Most of the discussion focuses on aspects of form, style, historical relics and other things that are considered physical is part of the culture of Muslims. Meanwhile, some people feel that the real Islam is not enough just realized with the physical aspect only. Currently, growing discourse about Islamic architecture which tends to emphasize Islamic values rather than physical typology of product architecture. In this matter, the author referred to it as Islamic Architecture. This paper is aimed to discover how extend to which the differences between two thinking about Islam Architecture and Islamic Architecture, and to find out the aspects which influence in Islamic Architecture product planning, through the study of various sources of the Qur'an and hadith, books, journals, and several articles, in addition to analysis of the author's own thoughts. From those studies it was found that a discussion of Islam architecture is very different from Islamic architecture. Islam architecture emphasizes the physical aspects of the built environment, while Islamic architecture is more advanced on Islamic values which root on Al Quran and hadith or sunnah of the Prophet. Aspects of Islamic architecture that need to be developed is efficiency, egalitarian, privacy and genius loci. Keywords : Islam Architecture, Islamic Architecture, Islamic values

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1730.001

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 head0.375
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.131 · 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