MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404880790 · doi:10.3130/aija.89.2487

ANALYSIS OF THE DESIGN PLAN OF THE JAPAN PAVILION AND ITS DISPLAY CONTENTS AT EXPO 67, MONTREAL

2024· article· en· W4404880790 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saikaku TOYOKAWA

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Architecture and Planning (Transactions of AIJ) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban and spatial planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPavilionPlan (archaeology)Architectural engineeringEngineeringVisual artsArtCivil engineeringHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the planning process for the Japan Pavilion at Expo 67 (held in Montreal) and the content showcased at the pavilion was analyzed. The analysis 1yielded three findings. First, Yoshinobu Ashihara’s initial design involved an assemblage of huge precast girders, which were later reduced to human scale. Second, although Vierendeel girders were used, this feature was inspired by Kenzo Tange’s design for the Dentsu headquarters. Third, the exterior space comprised pilotis (or piers) supporting the pavilion, a Japanese garden, and a plaza; these, however, did not draw as much attention as the motorcar and motorbike show area.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Architecture and Planning (Transactions of AIJ)Same topicUrban and spatial planningFrench-language works237,207