Exploring the architectural design process assisted in conventional design studio: a systematic literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The architectural design process is a unique process that has its inherent phases with specific activities within. Exploring and identifying the real design process which occurs within the conventional design studio is the key focus of this study. This study was carried out by adopting systematic literature review methodology. The most relevant articles for the review were identified by applying an inclusion and exclusion criteria based on a rubric developed to find answers to the research questions developed. For the literature review, 50 articles were selected by eliminating the non-related and non-suitable articles based on the rubric developed. The data was analysed by the content analysis based on the Grounded Theory. Grounded Theory was applied to generate a theory based on the data or findings. The results have given data to draw a Design Process model which is specific for architectural design studio practice. It is evident that the lack of integrating the intended user in the design process has impacted the solutions. Furthermore, many scholars have discussed the architectural design process, but there is a significant gap in discussing the involvement of users and context during the design process.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it