TRANSLATION OF HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE INTO MODERN PLANNING OF THE GOVERNMENT CENTER OF KYIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a step-by-step detailed analysis of the historical experience of projects and proposals for the development of the government quarter in Kyiv, the author draws analogies and focuses risk factors on the corresponding modern concepts proposed by architects for implementation in the 21st century. Proposals and competitions for the construction of the government and administrative center, which took place over the past century, have left behind a significant theoretical material that can be used in modern design. At the same time, we consider especially valuable the experience of blunders and limitations that did not allow to implement projects in previous epochs. Based on the author's thesis on the similarity of these negative factors throughout the 20th and early 21st century, risk factors have been formulated and principles have been crystallized that are and will be relevant in the near future for the modern design of the government center. The analysis of historical experience from the point of view of studying of not only positive, but, first of all, negative experience with the subsequent extrapolation to an actual building situation is rather new for modern Ukrainian architectural practice. Meanwhile, we argue that the need for appropriate research is due to the significant similarity of risk factors, which, if ignored, can lead to similar consequences – partial implementation or complete non-implementation of projects. The article draws analogies between the competition for the construction of the Government Quarter of 1934-1935, the post-war restoration of Khreshchatyk, proposals for the placement of the administrative center of Kyiv on the Left Bank and modern development projects of the Rybalskyy Peninsula ("Kyiv City") and the Telychky district.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".