MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058387381 · doi:10.1145/2461912.2461977

Generating and exploring good building layouts

2013· article· en· W2058387381 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologySeventh Framework ProgrammeNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceENCODEGraphSpace (punctuation)Variety (cybernetics)Set (abstract data type)Theoretical computer scienceInterface (matter)Artificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good building layouts are required to conform to regulatory guidelines, while meeting certain quality measures. While different methods can sample the space of such good layouts, there exists little support for a user to understand and systematically explore the samples. Starting from a discrete set of good layouts, we analytically characterize the local shape space of good layouts around each initial layout, compactly encode these spaces, and link them to support transitions across the different local spaces. We represent such transitions in the form of a portal graph. The user can then use the portal graph, along with the family of local shape spaces, to globally and locally explore the space of good building layouts. We use our framework on a variety of different test scenarios to showcase an intuitive design, navigation, and exploration interface.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.174 · 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