Question of creating the historical center of Togliatti: psychological prerequisites and project practice of preserving the memory of a place
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to raise the question of the feasibility of creating the historical center of the city of Togliatti in the structure of the Central District on the basis of a new building and transferred from the territory of the flooded Stavropol in the mid-50s. This idea was repeatedly raised at the administrative level and was partly expressed in the projects for the reconstruction of the Central Park, the Museum Quarter and a number of other project proposals. The issue of determining the urban centers of all districts of Togliatti is still being discussed and is debatable, on which there is no consensus. It is proposed to carry out an audit of the preserved historical and architectural heritage, to identify the optimal territory of the historical center with a subsequent design proposal for its improvement. All this leads to the search for conceptual foundations, because the historical heritage of the city with a centuries-old history is almost lost. Architectural methods of preserving the memory of place come to the rescue: commemoration, reminiscence, retrospection, reconstruction. Another task of the study is to combine design practices with psychological techniques aimed at maintaining a stable psycho-emotional state of a person.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".