Reviving the Traditional House Architecture in Irbid City, Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study highlights the importance of reviving the traditional houses architecture in Irbid city, Jordan. Every region has its architectural character, which is often influenced by the local context (the natural and cultural environments), particularly in Irbid city, which contains many traditional houses constructed hundreds of years ago. Between 1930 and 1960, most of these houses had been demolished and replaced with new constructions. The objective of this study was, thus, to propose plans and actions for reviving the traditional house as a cultural heritage. This paper presents a review of relevant literature, emphasizing the preservation concept and the heritage types; then, it briefs the history of Irbid city and highlights its population growth and urban composition. A field survey was conducted in the city. Based on it, four houses were selected to represent the different types of heritage houses, with emphasis on their design, building components, the technology used in their construction, the building materials, handling of the openings (arches), the ornaments of the buildings, and the urban form and its relationship with sustainability. The discussion in this paper summarizes the lessons learned from applying low technology in house construction and using natural building materials that can be recycled to achieve the sustainability of architecture. In addition, the discussion points out the challenges faced in the preservation of heritage. Afterward, the researchers suggest plans and actions that contribute to preserving this city's identity and heritage and conserving its heritage sites for future generations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".