A CASE STUDY ON THE SPATIAL PRACTICES OF CONSTRUCTION SITE WORKERS' QUARTERS IN KLANG VALLEY, MALAYSIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the spatial practices of construction worker housing in construction sites. In recent years, several standards and guidelines, such as MS 2593:2015 and Act 446, were implemented to improve the living environment of workers' temporary accommodation. Despite that, there is a lack of focus on the sociality of spaces as the design of these accommodations adhered to only basic spatial requirements. This resulted in prolonged issues of workers’ poor living environment being unresolved. A qualitative study using physical trace observation was conducted in a construction workers' accommodation located within an urban construction site in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Spatial observations were conducted in private areas, such as the bedrooms and the common areas, including the kitchen and dining spaces. This study reinforces the spatial practices of negotiation within the contested spaces of the temporary accommodation through the dynamic and fluid functional re-appropriation of spaces in the common and private spaces and the expansion of personal territory at both macro and micro levels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".