MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072409320 · doi:10.1162/10464880252820028

1:1 @ Carleton University School of Architecture

2002· article· en· W2072409320 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

VenueJournal of Architectural Education · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture and Computational Design
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStudioSpeculationArchitectureDesign studioVisual artsSociologyCurriculumArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringPedagogyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There exists a long-standing tradition of full-scale construction in the design studio at the Carleton University School of Architecture. The mantra “building as speculation” is explicitly evoked in varying studio and workshop contexts, ubiquitous within the fabric of the curriculum and design culture of the school. The value placed on 1:1 material engagement and construction techniques is qualified by an understanding of drawing (traditional and technological) as a form of critical, theoretical, and practical speculation. “Building speculations” at Carleton, in other words, are not constrained to conventional notions of design/build, but occur freely in the studio as a form of “sketching” or “modeling” that informs a wide range of design activities. Supported by a fully equipped metal and wood shop and photographic, video, and digital facilities, the “build” tradition at Carleton continues to adjust and transform according to the demands of architectural pedagogy.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.166 · 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