MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387825133 · doi:10.24101/logos.2023.65

Nauja architektūra saugomose teritorijose

2023· article· lt· W4387825133 on OpenAlexaff
Dalia Traškinaitė

Bibliographic record

VenueLOGOS · 2023
Typearticle
Languagelt
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Development and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest Territories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New Architecture in Protected TerritoriesSummARy New architectural concepts emerged in the already existing old environment and correlated with the concept and perception that the existing old buildings are relics of the past and valuable for the future, as they survived.with the development of this concept and the eventual formation of the heritage protection system and its provisions, the question of the meaning of authenticity also emerges, which is assessed by analyzing cases of new construction in historical environments, as well as the question of reconstruction, restoration and basically a copy of a building of a certain era.The opposition between the new and the old became evident during the period when architectural modernism started to dominate.This opposition remains important in the context of sustainable urban development.The article analyses the reasons for the emergence of the problem of new architecture in protected areas, revisits its genesis and examines historical concepts of relationship between the new and the old buildings.SANTRAukA Naujos architektūros koncepcijos jau esamoje senojoje aplinkoje atsirado ir koreliavo su samprata bei suvokimu, kad esami seni pastatai yra praeities reliktai ir jie vertingi ateičiai tokie, kokie išliko.Šiai sampratai plėtojantis ir galiausiai susiformavus paveldo apsaugos sistemai bei jos nuostatoms, įvertinant naujos statybos pastatus istorinėje aplinkoje, rekonstrukcijas, atstatymo ir iš esmės tam tikro laikotarpio pastato kopijos atvejus, tampa taip pat reikšmingas autentiškumo klausimas.Naujo ir seno priešprieša išryškėja, įsigalėjus architektūriniam modernizmui.jos padariniai išlieka aktualūs ir tvaraus miesto vystymosi kontekste.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLOGOSSame topicUrban Development and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207