MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214556111 · doi:10.16995/ah.8299

Harmonious Relationships: Sounds and Stones in Ottoman Architecture in the Making

2022· article· en· W4214556111 on OpenAlexaff
Gül Kale

Bibliographic record

VenueArchitectural Histories · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies of Medieval Iberia
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectureRelation (database)NarrativeConversationMusicalVisual artsReading (process)SoundscapeAestheticsHistoryLiteratureArtSociologySound (geography)LinguisticsCommunicationPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Architectural narratives on building processes are admittedly rare in premodern histories. Accounts of visitors who observed and reacted to architecture in the making are even more exceptional. Moreover early modern audiences’ perceptions of music and architecture have been rarely explored in relation to building processes and synesthetic experiences. This article presents a critical reading of Caʿfer Efendi’s Risāle-i Miʿmāriyye [Book on Architecture] of 1614 by focusing on its chapter on the Sultan Ahmed mosque (1609–17) in Istanbul. Caʿfer associates sounds in the construction site with Sufi musical practices and the science of music. A conversation with a Sufi at the site reveals how twelve types of marbles, four types of strikes, and seven types of foremen were associated with Ottoman music theory. The article also explores how the shared geometrical foundations of architectural tools and musical instruments were linked to harmonious sounds and forms. This union of spatial, visual, and aural experiences of the mosque in the making produced various forms of knowledge for the visitors. Architecture’s mediating role for sensuous, spiritual, and scientific knowledge further illuminates the relation between theory and practice in Ottoman architecture.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.052
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchitectural HistoriesSame topicHistorical Studies of Medieval IberiaFrench-language works237,207