Afet sonras? uygulanacak ve ge?iciden kal?c?ya d?n??t?r?lecek konut tasar?mlar? i?in T?rkiye ko?ullar?na uygun yap?m sistemlerinin irdelenmesi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T?rkiye'de afet sonras? bar?nma ihtiyac?n?n kar??lanmas?, ?? b?y?k a?amadan olu?maktad?r. Bu a?amalar?? acil olarak ?ad?rlarda bar?nma, orta vadede ge?ici bar?naklara yerle?me ve son olarak da kal?c? konutlar?n tamamlanmas? ile kal?c? bar?nmaya ba?lama ?eklindedir. Bu ?? a?ama i?in, ayr? ayr? harcamalar yap?lmakta ve ???nc? a?amaya ge?ildi?inde, ilk iki a?amada yap?lan bar?naklar bir daha kullan?lamayacak durumda olmaktad?r. ?lke olarak i?inde bulunulan ekonomik durum g?z ?n?ne al?nd???nda?? ayn? aile i?in yap?lan ge?ici prefabrike bar?nak ve kal?c? konutun yerine?? h?zl? yap?m y?ntemleri kullan?larak, tek bir kal?c? konutun yap?lmas? daha ekonomik olabilecektir. Bunun olabilmesi i?in, konutlar?n ge?ici bar?nma s?resi i?inde tamamlanmas? gerekmektedir. D?nya genelinde gecekondu ?nleme b?lgelerinde ve b?y?k g?? alan ?ehirlerin konut s?k?nt?s? ya?anan b?lgelerinde zaman zaman uygulanm?? olan ?ekirdek konut ?retim modelinin?? tez kapsam?nda, afet sonras? ge?ici kullan?mdan kal?c? kullan?ma ge?ilecek konut ?retimi i?in bir model olmas? d???n?lmektedir. Bu model kapsam?nda konutun yap?m?, iki etaba ayr?lmaktad?r. ?lk etapta afetzedelere en d???k konfor ?artlar?nda ge?ici olarak bar?nabilecekleri, fakat ta??y?c? sistemi kal?c? konut yap?m sistemlerinden se?ilmi? konutlar?n verilmesi?? ikinci etapta ise, konutlara yatayda ve/veya d??eyde yeni mekanlar eklenmesi yada mekanlar?n geni?letilmesi sonucunda, ilk etaptaki konutlar?n kullan?m alanlar?n?n art?r?lmas? ile konutlar?n kal?c? konut ?ekline d?n??t?r?lmesi hedeflenmektedir. Tez i?inde belirlenen birinci ve ikinci derecede ?nemli kriterlere g?re ???Fayda De?eri Analizi' kapsam?nda bir de de?erlendirme modeli ?nerilmektedir. De?erlendirme modeli kapsam?nda elde edilen fayda de?erlerine g?re alternatif yap?m sistemleri ve plan ?emalar? aras?nda -T?rkiye ?artlar?na uygunluk a??s?ndan- bir se?im yap?labilmektedir. In Turkey, provision of needs for post-disaster housing consists of three main phases. These phases are urgent sheltering in tents, temporary sheltering for an intermediate term and permanent sheltering with the completion of permanent housing at last. For these three phases, expenses are made separately, and when it is time for the third phase, the shelters built in the first two phases would be in no condition to be used. Considering the economical situation of Turkey, it would be more economical to build one permanent dwelling using fast construction techniques, instead of building temporary prefabricated shelter and permanent dwelling for the same family. The dwellings need to be completed during the time of temporary sheltering to realize this. In context of the thesis, the nucleus dwelling production model, which has from time to time been in use in regions to prevent squatters and regions that have housing shortage of cities taking huge immigration throughout the world, is thought to be a model for production of permanent housing, which will be passed from temporary post-disaster house. Construction of housing consists of two phases within this model. Delivery of the houses with the minimum comfort criteria provided but the structural system chosen from permanent dwelling construction systems, where the victims of disaster could dwell temporarily in the first phase?? while converting them from temporary to permanent housing by increasing the usage areas of the housing of the first phase as a result of adding new spaces to the housings in the vertical/horizontal direction or enlarging the spaces is targeted in the second phase. An evaluation model according to the criteria of first and second degree of importance mentioned in thesis is proposed in scope of ???Cost and Benefit Analysis'. A selection can be made between the alternative construction systems and plan schemes according to the cost benefits that are obtained within the evaluation model-due to suitability to conditions of Turkey-.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.024 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".