Stylistic Influence of Mughal Architecture on Malaysian Mosques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Art and architectural historians categorize styles, such as Gothic, Roman and Greek, based on the perceptual similarity of distinguishable features repeatedly used by a group or an individual in a region or during a particular period — however, style changes with time, socio-political and cultural contexts and customs. The changed features, when repeated, emerge or create a new style; moreover, one style influences the other. This study aims to measure the degree of Mughal architectural stylistic influence on colonial mosques in Malaysia based on the similarity model and feature matching. To achieve the aim of this research, three case studies were selected from North India representing early, high and late Mughal periods, and they were compared with three mosques from the British colonial period in Malaysia. Eight repeatedly used Mughal architectural features were recognized in Malaysian mosques. Their perceived stylistic similarity was measured on a Likert scale by showing the photographs of each pair of architectural features from Malaysian and Mughal case studies. The respondents were forty-three architecture students who had already studied Mughal architecture at their undergraduate level. Mughal influence on Malaysian mosque architecture has been recognized by several scholars in their work. However, most of these research projects are typological studies. Early Southeast Asian architecture was vernacular, and over time, it had been influenced by foreign architectural styles. During the British colonial period, Mughal architectural features were incorporated into Malay buildings, especially in public and religious structures. The result shows the Mughal stylistic influence on British colonial Malaysian mosques through five features of Mughal architecture (finial, dome, chhatri, façade and pishtaq) of the high and late Mughal period.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".