Bibliographic record
Abstract
what nowadays we call performance is the result of theoretical definitions in the opinions and theories of architectures and pundits of the architecture theorizing history and especially in twenty century.Thinking in the quiddity of this concept and understanding its real meaning need to study its quiddity in the opinions of elders who have had main share in transformation of fundamental concepts of architecture theorizing.(Sofeh magazine/ the performance concept in Louie Kan thought/Gharibpour, Afra).This article tries that with studying the theories of ((Louie Kan)) and ((Walter Gropious)) about architecture, study and explain the quiddity of performance concept in their opinions.In the first part, the thoughts of Louie Kan about architecture are studied.In this part, according to the fundamental words and phrases that Louie himself has applied them and studying his theoretical views, philosophic substructure of his thought about architecture is interpreted and according to the thoughts of Louie Kan about architecture, it is tried that the performance concept to be interpreted and explained.In the second part, the thoughts of Gropious about architecture performance are studied.In this part, according to the theories of Gropious and the goals of Bauhaus school in the field of architecture performance and practical arts, also reconciling and relation of architecture with industrial designing are studied.And finally the differences and similarities of these two architects in their thought and style are studied.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.960 | 0.959 |
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; both teacher heads 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".