Multi-Criteria Decision Making of Sustainable Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings Based on the A'WOT Analysis: A Case Study of Cordahi Complex, Alexandria, Egypt
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
This study presents a multi-criteria strategic approach of decision-making in sustainable adaptive reuse by evaluating cultural heritage assets and identifying potential alternatives. For effective preservation, adaptive reuse of heritage buildings is a strategic decision. Whereas adaptive reuse decisions are based on several, sometimes contradictory criteria, in addition to decisions from multiple parties and stakeholders are potentially inconsistent. This research finds that the reuse process should consider many important criteria to expand and enhance the knowledge base. This paper presents a systematic application and analytical method in decision-making for adaptive reuse of heritage Cordahi complex in Alexandria, Egypt. The A'WOT analysis application was used as an analytical tool to obtain results through the integration of a SWOT matrix and an Analytical Hierarchy (AHP) process. The SWOT technique was used to examine the internal and external factors and identify the important strategic factors, then apply the AHP method to prioritize these factors to make them measurable. Then, SWOT priority factors were used to formulate strategies using the TOWS Matrix. The proposed strategy relates to protecting and promoting the importance of heritage and the context, enhance the tourism potential, economic development for the population, interpretation strategy, community engagement, sustainable management, partnerships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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