MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977009784

대학기숙사 공용공간 계획을 위한 사용자 만족도 및 선호도 조사

2018· article· ko· W2977009784 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue한국실내디자인학회 학술발표대회 논문집 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Topics in Contemporary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)RecreationPreferenceSpace (punctuation)PsychologyGeographyComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to identify the satisfaction and preference for the Planning of Shared Space in College Dormitory. A total of 170 copies were distributed and 150 responses were analyzed as valid samples. According to the survey, generally the middle level was preferred the most for a recreational quarter and lounge was the most favored type by users. For a fitness quarter, basement level and gym were the most preferred choices as a whole; though a private living quarter shouldn't be close to it. An educational quarter was preferred to be placed with a recreational quarter in general. This research propose direction for the future planning by comprehending satisfaction level and preference with spatial organisation and efficiency in utilizing of shared space.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.026

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.282 · 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