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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tall buildings, by definition, are vertical objects.Historically, architects are more concerned about the tops of towers and less about their bases.Understandably, this is to make a statement through which more attention to the building can be drawn.However, the building base-the podium-is the place that is important to ground the building within its context.This neglected part of tall buildings is responsible for not only welcoming people to this gigantic structure, but also mediating the scale of the tower with the surrounding buildings and creating a good public realm for the city.This paper aims to address the issue of urban integration between tall buildings and the urban fabric.To achieve this goal, a desk study and field work were undertaken.The former involved a literature and professional documents review, whereas the latter involved interviewing 23 experts from the Gulf Region (including architects, planners, and academics) and observing six tall buildings in the Gulf Region's main cities, including Riyadh and Dubai.This study draws some lessons from comparing tall buildings in the Gulf Region with those in Canadian cities, including Toronto and Calgary.This paper concludes with proposing some design recommendations to improve urban integration, enhance the quality of ground spaces in tall buildings, and refine our experience with the podium.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it