CORRELATION BETWEEN DESIGN, SERVICE AND ACTIVITY FACTOR IN CO-WORKING SPACE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The alteration of way people working caused by economy based knowledge, creativity and digital creates the spread of Co-working Space. This study aimed to identified correlation between design, services and avtivity factor in Co-working Space. Analysis result showed there are five dimension design characteristics of Co-working Space: serenity and health, physiological comfort, uniqueness, privacy and natural environment, and simplicity. Analysis result also showed six dimension of services of Co-working Space: service, restorative and work facilities, accesibility, supporting facility, complement facility, and community. Acitivity dimension of Co-working Space are educative, business, restorative, supporting, creative work, and interactive work activities. Activity dimension that has the highest mean is interactive work, restorative, and creative work activity which is has correlation with service, accessibility, and community. Those three activities also has correlation with design factor: serenity and health, physiological comfort, privacy and natural environment, and simplicity. Kata kunci : Sequential mixed-method, Karakteristik Co-working Space, Korelasi multivariat.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".