Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life is comprised of many moments big and small and each of these moments help to shape people into who they are and who they will become. These moments constitute self or Home for individuals. The idea of homelessness is the plight many humans face during their lifetime. This feeling of being lost leads many on a journey of discovery where people seek themselves or a feeling of belonging (Home). Those who suffer from the metaphysical sense of homelessness go on journeys looking for the sacred and sometimes they find it in the profane. In history we learn about how people form societies and create communities. Community is what gives people that sense of home or sense of self. Can the sacred be found in the secular or profane? Who decides what is sacred and what is not? The idea of the sacred and the profane play’s a large part in why, how and where people find home. This Paper explores the relationship of Sacred space and investigates what key elements of architecture aid in achieving the feeling of home. To understand all of the parts that allow a place to embody the sacred which allows said space to become home for many people. In this instance we will compare the Hans Scharoun Concert Hall to a Church to show the architectural differences between a place that is typically looked at as sacred and one that is profane. The comparative analysis of these two buildings will illuminate the physical and metaphysical aspects of architecture that embody the feeling of home thus making a space sacred. This Paper Draws on the writing of “The Sacred & Profane” Mircea Eliade, A Method For Thinking about Power Dynamics In Christian Space” “ A home in the World” by Thomas Barrie. All of the aforementioned text have ideas and themes that support and oppose my theory that home or the feeling of home is what creates the sacred both physically and metaphysically. The significance of these findings will support the theories drawn on why some people find home in places like concert halls and the validity of a space that would typically be categorized as profane being called sacred.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".