Improving functional standards of apartments in buildings from large-panels, on the example of solutions applied in Lublin in the 1970s and 1980s of the 20th century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Housing blocks constructed from prefabricated elements have been the backbone of housing resources in many Polish cities in the last fifty years. Over the time, the residents’ expectations regarding the residential amenity standards, as well as demographic structure of the estates built in the communist era have changed. Therefore, the current residents’ needs significantly differ from the needs and expectations of those who took over the newly built flats in the last quarter of the 20th century. Fundamentally, the functional and spatial standards of flats built before 1989 are already out of date. The proper functioning of the usable dwelling space of these apartments has gained additional importance due to the inhabitants getting progressively older and, especially recently, the prolonged SARS CoV-2 pandemic. The introduction of the lockdown, which involved strict restrictions on movement outside the place of residence during the pandemic, made the apartments the centre of life and a place of work for many families. Suddenly, for psychophysical reasons, the importance of having larger floor space, than the functional solutions typically used in the 1970s and 1980s offered, has increased. It appears that the residents begun to take interest in all possible solutions to improve the functionality of their homes.The aim of the article is to present proposals for contemporary architectural solutions that can improve the functionality of these apartments that would increase residents’ standard of living and everyday comfort.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".