MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198558640 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.160406

Detection of Limestone Quarries in Jordan Through Remote Sensing Data to Achieve Sustainable Utilization in Vernacular Architecture

2021· article· en· W3198558640 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohannad Tarrad, Majed Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectureNatural (archaeology)Natural stoneArchitectural engineeringCivil engineeringBuilding materialSustainabilityNatural materialsVernacular architectureVernacularQuality (philosophy)EngineeringArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All human societies seek stability and use of place and material in order to create architectural buildings. One of the most important materials that man used as a building material was natural stone, and in Jordan stone has a special architectural value, as Jordanian architects used it to form a unique architectural style, especially in the capital, Amman. But at the end of the last century and the beginning of the current century, alternative manufactured building materials appeared, and architects began using them for many reasons, including the lack of quality of natural stone and its defects, which resulted in deformation of the architectural facades. The research used remote sensing techniques to know the properties and quality of the stone. This research used the descriptive approach in studying the history of architecture in Jordan and its relationship to limestone, and relied on the analytical survey by obtaining data from satellite images, where they were analyzed and the properties of the stone in the ground were shown. This research aims to preserve the use of natural stone in construction as a building material that has characteristics in sustainability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicGeotechnical and construction materials studiesFrench-language works237,207