Geology of Parliament Buildings 3. Building Stones of Ontario's Provincial Parliament Building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Completed in 1893, Ontario's Parliament Buildings were designed to hold all the government and elected representatives' offices. Expansion of government services soon required the construction of several other buildings to house government offices. Using in its design mostly Canadian stone from Ontario and Quebec, the 1893 building was Toronto's first full Richardson Romanesque building. Partial reconstruction after a fire and the addition of a new wing combined to bring a variety of building stones to the site. A brief history of the building, and the properties of its stones - their strengths and weaknesses, is presented along with the result of a century of exposure to the city's weather, and the maintenance schedule underway to ensure another century of use. Sommaire Termine en 1893, les edifices du parlement de l'Ontario avaient ete concus pour concentrer les bureaux de tous les deputes. Par la suite, la multiplication des services gouvernementaux a necessite la construction de plusieurs autres edifices pour heberger les bureaux gouvernementaux. Utilisant principalement des roches de l'Ontario et du Quebec dans sa conception, les edifices de 1893 furent les premieres constructions de Toronto du pur style romanesque Richardson. La reconstruction partielle apres un incendie et l'adjonction d'une aile explique la variete des pierres de taille du site. Le present article decrit brievement l'histoire de l'edifice ainsi que les proprietes des pierres (leurs points forts et leurs points faibles etant analyses dans le contexte d'un siecle d'exposition aux intemperies de la ville), de meme le programme d'entretien en cours visant a prolonger leur vie utile d'un autre siecle.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".