Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, more than ever, the need to provide the field of growth and fertility of the potential talent of architects seems necessary.Creativity is considered as the main feature of a design process and physical environment is one of the factors contributing to the increase of these features.The present study, titled "Explaining the physical components of space in creating an architectural learning environment" aimed at increasing the creativity and innovation of architects, considering the psychology of the environment and the spatial attributes and physical characteristics, seeking to create a stimulating environment for the liberation of thought and the creative expression of architects.Selective strategy of this research is taking advantage of mixed strategies; the method used in this research is descriptive-analytic research method that after studying the literature, the secondary information needed for research was obtained through semi-structured interviews.Then, the results were evaluated through a narrative analysis, and ultimately, the implications of natural element irritation, diversity and flexibility, aesthetic attributes, and personal and group involvement with space (creation of creativity collective environments) were extracted as creative motivator and after scientific investigating, theoretical bases were extracted from the collected information and the effective design qualities are presented to solve the problem.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.949 | 0.906 |
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".