MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of Bedestan (St. Nicholas Church) on the first decade of conservation works

2020· article· en· W3026811082 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Damla Mısırlısoy, Nilay Bilsel, I Safkan

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipQuarter (Canadian coin)Intervention (counseling)HistoryGeographyArchaeologyPolitical scienceLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract St. Nicholas Church (Bedestan) is one of the most significant monuments located exactly in the centre of the walled city of Nicosia, in the Selimiye Quarter. The significance of the heritage building lies on its temporal transformation. Bedestan initially built by Byzantines in the 5th century, and was later enlarged during the Lusignan, Venetian, Ottoman and British period. Between 2004 and 2009 had gone through conservation works by United Nations Development Programme Partnership for Future (UNDP-PFF) which is funded by European Union. In 2009 the project has won Europa Nostra Award between 140 projects. The project consisted of both architectural and structural strengthening interventions. The aim of the study is to assess current condition of the structure on the first decade of conservation works. The method had three objectives. Firstly, the literature was reviewed in order to understand the historical process of the building. Then, site survey was completed for further understanding of the applied intervention to the structure. Finally, the current condition of the structure was observed after ten years of completed restoration works. Deterioration on used materials as well as durability of strengthening works was assessed and observations were listed herein.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207