Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the continuous increase of urban density, people gradually find that the city that is isolated from nature is contrary to the instinct of human desire for nature. The pro-nature design born to alleviate this dilemma has naturally become the focus of attention and the direction of future urban development. trend. The purpose of this paper is to find out the differences of the same concept in different environments and the reasons for the differences by studying and comparing the biophilic design cases and environmental differences between Canada and China. By listing and comparing the different human and natural environments of two countries, as well as the comparison of two cases, the article studies the different influences of people's living environment on the new biological design. Finally, it is concluded that the different levels of people's pressure and desire for nature will have an impact on biophilic design, and the degree of pressure and desire for nature is proportional to the number of biophilic elements in the design. This paper expects that biophilic design can focus on the sustainability and practicality of buildings, and at the same time, this paper provides information for future biophilic development and a theoretical basis for design.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".