MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408131407 · doi:10.36448/ja.v15i1.3495

Spirit of Place Study of Malioboro Cultural Heritage Case Study: Margo Utomo Road Section

2025· article· en· W4408131407 on OpenAlexaff
Ary Fangestu, Alfaaruq Allaisy, Putu Ayu P. Agustiananda, Arif Budi Sholihah

Bibliographic record

VenueJURNAL ARSITEKTUR · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)ArtAdvertisingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Margo utomo is one of the famous street names in Yogyakarta, which is located south of the white pal monument to the eastern entrance of the monument station and is included in the philosophical axis. This research focuses on the margo utomo road section which is included in the Malioboro Cultural Heritage Area (KCB). The urgency of this research is to find the Genius Loci and describe the context that is owned as a public space. The purpose of this research is to explore the city's public space by looking at image expression by finding visual uniqueness, the spaces formed and the character of the area created. This research uses a qualitative descriptive method with an architectural phenomenology approach by describing the Genius Loci that are formed. The results of the research found the role of the philosophical axis as a Genius Loci owned by the road section because it provides local uniqueness in the aspects of image, space and character. This research recommends when the development of road sections is carried out with a phenomenological approach because it strengthens the Genius Loci owned so that it can strengthen the philosophical axis as the main element .

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJURNAL ARSITEKTUR→Same topicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation→French-language works237,207→