MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416108880 · doi:10.25807/22225064_2025_88_89

TRADITIONAL IDEOLOGICAL AND ARTISTIC COMPONENTS IN MODERN ARCHITECTURE OF CHINA. THE COMPARATIVE APPROACH

2025· article· W4416108880 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueУниверситетский научный журнал · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSustainable Urban and Rural Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectureIdeologyComparative methodQuarter (Canadian coin)Natural (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is devoted to the problem of approaches to the formation of a methodology for studying the formation of continuity of images in Chinese architecture at the end of the 20th - first quarter of the 21st century. It is shown that the components of traditional architecture, taken for granted in a certain period, grow and evolve, and with them, architecture also changes in accordance with changes in worldview, lifestyle and social structure. A comparative analysis of significant buildings indicates that contemporary Chinese architecture remains true to its civilisational imperative. Architects keep the system of traditional images, only change the design instructions, use modern construction materials. It is argued that architects embody Chinese culture and worldview in their projects, thereby preserving a unified mental field.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.284
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