MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388551025 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.180515

Analysis of Spatial Considerations in Norman Foster’s Architectural Design: A Case Study of Three Museums

2023· article· en· W4388551025 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khadeja Mohammed Ali Al-Rawi, Asmaa Hassan Al-Dabbagh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture, Design, and Social History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectural engineeringArchitectural designEngineeringComputer scienceArchitectureVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Architectural trends dictate the varying design characteristics of organizing horizontal plans, with spatial considerations perceived as the most influential factor.This research focused on these spatial considerations, which exhibit distinct features compared to other factors.A review of modernism and postmodernism trends revealed emergent factors that both influenced and were influenced by architectural thought during these periods.These factors were categorized into several aspects, including spatial, functional, and technical considerations-fundamental considerations encompassing numerous characteristics.The work of architect Norman Foster was examined, specifically his design characteristics relating to spatial considerations in the design of museums (Narbo Via, Da Tong, and Carre De Art).An analytical methodology was employed, utilizing AutoCAD and Depth Map software to measure variables and statistical software to analyze data, interpret results, and draw conclusions.Spatial considerations were analyzed at two levels: plans and the building shape, in both two and three-dimensional spaces.The research concluded that Foster's approach predominantly utilizes the layering characteristic (restricted to two layers) and deviates from centrality.These were identified as the most critical design characteristics of spatial considerations in organizing horizontal layouts at the two-dimensional level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicArchitecture, Design, and Social HistoryFrench-language works237,207