MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312062478 · doi:10.54338/27382656-2022.3-002

Challenges to Residential Quarter Reconstruction: The Case of the Center of Yerevan City

2022· article· en· W4312062478 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Azatyan, Madlena Igitkhanyan, Anush Ohanyan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Architectural and Engineering Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Regional scienceStrengths and weaknessesCenter (category theory)GeographyEnvironmental planningArchitectural engineeringPolitical scienceEngineeringArchaeologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the key challenges to the reconstruction of residential development in urban areas. It aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the reconstruction processes of residential quarters in Yerevan and in international practices and to identify certain principles that are appropriate for the further development of the process in Yerevan. The paper presents the features of the reconstruction processes that took place in the sphere of a residential development of the city of Yerevan. The study has been conducted on the reconstruction processes of various nature and content of residential quarters in past decades in a number of cities around the world, focusing on the analysis of topics that remain unexplored in the practice of Yerevan city. A comparative analysis of the findings and conclusions made in the framework of this paper allows us to reveal the strengths and weaknesses in the research and design works for the reconstruction of residential quarters in Yerevan already developed, as well as to develop principles for the choice of study directions, analysis methods, systematization and classification objects, which can be applied to local and international research on the given topic and in the design processes.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Architectural and Engineering ResearchSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207