Relationships Between Interior and Exterior Spaces as a Factor of Efficient University Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universities are focusing on the students’ needs as a part of interior space elements in the designing processes. However, these needs related to the design of the environmental and formulating systems. Students prefer a comfortable interior space for movement and social activities. Therefore, comfortability should be considered in the design process of the educational building, especially for students’ space. The study observed the negative space in the buildings of the University of Mosul, which students lost the healthy relationship between the open and interior space in Students’ space. The gathering points inside and outside buildings is the focus of the current study. Therefore, the problem statement is “There is a gap in the design processes of the interior space that provides a comfortable students’ space”. Therefore, the main research question is “What are influencing factors of the designing and adaptive reuse processes of the interior space in the university buildings”. The research aim is “to identify the important factors that influence students’ needs in the educational building at the University of Mosul”. A quantitative approach applied by using questioner and measuring instruments to collect data from selected case in the University of Mosul. The triangulation of the data shows the importance of direct connection between the exterior and interior space. Besides, the availability of green area, green elements, and comfortable area in the exterior and interior space are the important factors as results showed. Partially, the majority (81%) of the students preferred a free space that can students adapted to 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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".