MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913022900 · doi:10.3130/aija.84.221

STUDY ON THE MOVE TO <i>MAIKO</i>, PRODUCTION OF THE BRICK, THE COMPANY BADGE AND RELATIONS THE HUNTER & CO. OF THE <i>KANSAI-RENGA-KAISYA</i>

2019· article· en· W2913022900 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ikuo HIRAYAMA

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Architecture and Planning (Transactions of AIJ) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Robotics and Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrickFactory (object-oriented programming)EngineeringCorporationCapital (architecture)ManagementBusinessCivil engineeringHistoryArchaeologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reconsidered the Maiko bricks that J. Condor made to "AN ARCHITECT'S NOTES ON THE GREAT EARTHQUAKE OF OCTOBER, 1891." after the field investigation of the disaster area of the Nobi earthquake, and the Kansai Bricklay Co., which made the bricks. The following points became clarified. Initially, Kansai-renga-seisakuzyo was founded in 1886 at Ozone of Osaka by Simeirou, and Wada Hanbee participated in the capital in October 1887. The reason why the Kasai-renga-seisakuzyo moved to Maiko of Hyogo at early time was that Wada thought about the move of the factory. According to the document, the foundation of the Kansai-Renga-Kaisya was in January 1888, the company's authorization was June 16, 1888, but the completion of the factory was at the end of January 1889. According to the newspaper report, the company started manufacturing bricks in February 1889, the company produced 30,000 bricks every day. I thought that the company invited the engineer from British as for the Maiko brick having been slightly large with the front article, however, the reason was that the company manufactured the Maiko bricks with brick making machines imported from the UK via the Hunter & Co.. In addition, the Hunter & Co. participated in the management of the company. The company exported more than half of the bricks to Canada as the ballast of foreign ship. The Maiko bricks were rather large size, I thought in the previous manuscript because the company invited British engineers. However, the reason was that the company imported brick making instruments from the UK through the Hunter & Co. produced bricks. The company's mark of Kansai-Renga-Kabusikigaisya decides to combine three rectangles into a triangle by the company's advertisement. This stamp can also be confirmed on the brick used at the former the Hunter's mansion. And the Hunter & Co. was a stockholder of Kansai-Renga-Kabusikigaisya.

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)0.001
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 score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Architecture and Planning (Transactions of AIJ)Same topicEducational Robotics and EngineeringFrench-language works237,207