Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creativity, as one of the great manifestations of human thought, is important in today's world.Creativity is a mental process aimed at producing an innovative and valuable product.The creativity process in the mind of a creative architect has two dimensions of imagination and conception.The imagination is the creation of images in the minds of the architect who freely develops ideas for the creation of an architectural work, and conception in the architecture of mental imagery to build an image of the architectural effect that has actually been and has never been seen.Conception and imagination are architectural prerequisites for architectural creativity.Now, if environmental components are in the process of improving the environment, they can help promote creativity and take steps to create innovative and creative effects.Environmental factors in a physical environment have a great influence on increasing of creative growth.The purpose of this research is to recognize the concept of creativity and to study the environmental conditions and factors affecting the promotion of creativity in the process of forming an architectural creation.The research method was descriptive-analytic and collecting library information.This paper, while explaining the concept of creativity and creativity in architecture, will show the role of environmental stimuli in enhancing architectural creativity and the results of this study will provide environmental factors that stimulate creativity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.974 | 0.953 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".