Understanding Changes in Architectural Form-Function-Meaning Relations: in the Case of Kampong Aquarium, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of architectural theory can be seen as a debate between those who place more emphasis on form than function. or vice versa. It is around these themes that the differences between the architects of the late 19th century and the Modernists are best understood. Then came the architects of the postmodern period, in about the last quarter of the 20th century, who added aspects of meaning and considered them important in architecture. This paper aims to understand the form-function-meaning relation in architecture in the case of Kampong Aquarium, Jakarta, Indonesia, with an architectural qualitative descriptive method. The results of the study show that there has been a significant change in the form-function-meaning of Kampong Aquarium, especially since the evictions in 2016. Because the phenomenon of Architectural Change (form-function-meaning relationship) Kampong Aquarium is relatively new, there has not been much research on it. So that this research is expected to open up opportunities for further research with the same theme.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".