Traditional Kitchen Design for Sustainable Low-Income Dwellings in Developing Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The place of kitchens in contemporary designs is quite different from the traditional designs in terms of location, aesthetics and furnishing. Thus, this paper discussed development in kitchen designs over the past centuries and place emphasis on sustainable low-income kitchen design. The study examined the location of kitchens in contemporary dwellings in comparison with traditional dwellings in order to create a hybrid kitchen design that is sustainable, attainable and acceptable to contemporary and traditional individuals. Research methodology involved descriptive survey; with primary data obtained using structured questionnaire, systematic observation and interview with occupants of buildings in Awi community, Akamkpa Local Government Area of Cross River State, Nigeria which is the study area. These were complemented with photographs of kitchens in the existing buildings within the area of study. 50 buildings purposely selected were studied to determine the designs, and placement/location of kitchens in these buildings in relation to the contemporary buildings respectively. Finally, the data collected were analyzed using simple statistical tool to obtain percentages, rankings and relative significance index (RSI) respectively to determine the reasons for the design and location of the kitchen. The result shows that of the five variables examined, cultural influence was the most significant reason for the location of kitchens outside the housing unit. The recommendation is that low-income dwelling should have kitchen space within in addition to the attached or detached kitchens in their dwellings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".