Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to identifying the features of the creative environment in the context of the specifics of the space of the coworking center and to determine the basic design principles and means of its creation. The concept of "creative space" in the context of the specifics of the design of the coworking center has been clarified and supplemented. In this study, the concept of creative environment is considered by us as a subject-spatial environment, in the process of development and creation of which the designer takes into account not only the specifics of the philosophy of self-realization, but also tools to meet this need in anthropocentric approach. The study found that modern coworking centers, thanks to unique design approaches, are positioned as a favorable creative environment for the work of the creative class in the context of the implementation of new creative ideas. It is proved that functionality, artistic image, providing the necessary conditions for efficiency, ease of use, safety and aesthetic pleasure from being in the space of the coworking center and interaction with objects is achieved only through a systematic approach to design, which takes into account functional and technological and social -cultural factors. It is determined that the creation of a creative environment of a coworking center by a designer is the result of complex design - joint technical, aesthetic and artistic activities, the main property of which is anthropocentrism, ie human orientation. Accordingly, in the design process, the designer proceeds solely from human needs (in this case during work) to avoid unwanted adaptation of visitors to the coworking center to the environment created by him.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".