MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Agency of Making and Architecture Education: Design-Build Curriculum in a New School of Architecture

2014· article· en· W2098327231 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tammy Gaber

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Architectural Research Archnet-IJAR · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumAgency (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Design studioArchitectureDowntownPedagogySociologyMandateEngineeringEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceGeographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing a curriculum for Canada’s newest school of architecture in forty years created the opportunity for a commitment to new pedagogy that would address changes and needs in the profession, particularly in the Northern context. The tri-cultural mandate of the school (First Nations, Francophone, Anglophone), and the desire to create a complete design-build curriculum aligned with the community’s commitment for change and the location of the school in former historic buildings downtown. The design-build curriculum means that in each studio year the cohort will design and construct at full scale a project relevant to the context of the school such as the ice fishing huts completed this past year. Optional design/build workshops in the summer in Europe allowed for additional experimentation of construction methods in other specific northern contexts. This paper outlines the larger and specific contexts for the design of the design-build curriculum, the processes of the first year of implementation, the agency of making both for the student and instructors and concludes with a discussion of the trajectory of design-build in the school.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Architectural Research Archnet-IJARSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207