MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“Second Life” of Abandoned Temples – Retrospect and Prospects

2019· article· en· W2917188016 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jerzy Uścinowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Development and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconographyModernization theoryArchitectureIdeologyHistoryAdaptation (eye)Quarter (Canadian coin)Transformation (genetics)Ancient historyArchaeologyPoliticsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents "second life" of abandoned Christian temples. It focuses on searching for modern methods of saving the architecture of temples from ruination and profanation, while ensuring its dignified transformation. It presents selected examples of full or partial reconstructions of the ruins of temples and interconfessional conversions in the last quarter of a century in Poland. It also shows the process of transformation of spatial and functional structures as well as iconography of the temples, implemented throughout adaptation, modernization or extension. It covers problems in architectural conservation as well as essential ideological aspects of symbolical and liturgical nature. Apart from a retrospective look at first post-war buildings of this type there are also latest author projects introduced. They exemplify a design method of a "non-invasive" approach to historical monuments, including respect for their historical values and adding new qualities at the same time. Those examples are representative for the architecture of cultural borderland, which attempts to synthesize both Western and Eastern Christian art.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicUrban Development and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207