Osmanlı Ahşap Kapı ve Pencere Kanatlarındaki Kompozisyonlar ve Altın Üçgenler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood materials have been used widely in architectural structures due to both durability and its convenience in processing. Many door and window leaves, minbar and preaching platforms from the Anatolian Seljuk and Ottoman periods have reached the present day. Although the use of marble material in the minbar was observed in the Ottomans since the classical period, wood materials have always been preferred in the leaves of the doors and windows. The use of pentagonal-decagonal composition; which is seen in the leaves of the doors of the Anatolian Seljuks Konya Beyhekim Mosque (The last quarter of the 13th century) and in stone decorations of some structures, became widespread in the Principalities period, and using these composition became common with the enrichment of the shapes of wooden pieces in the classical period of the Ottoman Empire and in most of the leaves, this composition was preferred. In the study, we will focus on the reasons and origin of the preference of pentagonal-decagonal compositions in the middle panels of the leaves of the doors and windows of the Ottoman period and on the development line extending to the Anatolian Seljuk period. Similarly, the use of these compositions in the lower panels of the leaves and in some preaching rostra has been studied. It was observed that these compositions were given within a rectangle arranged on 72º axis on the door and window leaves, and rectangles on the 36º axis were preferred in preaching rostra. Triangles with these two angles are referred to as golden triangles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.012 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".