Digital Reconstruction as a means of understanding a building’s history - Case studies of a multilayer prototype
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
The experiments presented in this paper are situated at the crossroads of two fields: the understanding and communication of history to students and the field of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). More specifically, we aim to propose to students, ways of transferring information about lifestyles and techniques linked to the construction methods used in the past and which are present in ancient sites. It is not merely a question of proposing experiments for managing an inventory of knowledge such as that summarized in historical texts, but rather a means for understanding it: How do we communicate the invisible? How do we make visible what we cannot see but that we can imagine lies beneath the ruins of ancient sites? Lastly, how do we propose new approaches in the transferring of these historic skills and lifestyles? Such are the questions that the students experiments will attempt to answer while using computers as cognitive tools. In this case, these cognitive tools are designated as Âmultilayer prototypes which aim to develop a dynamic virtual history space through augmented reality.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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