MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127755886 · doi:10.21606/drs.2006.43

Revisiting Philosophy and Education in Landscape Architecture

2006· article· en· W2127755886 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

VenueProceedings of DRS · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandscape architectureArchitectureContext (archaeology)Landscape designSalientPhilosophy of designWork (physics)SociologyComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyPhilosophy educationCivil engineeringArchaeologySocial scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a crisis in landscape architecture. Where, as a design discipline, the profession is meant to act as a mediator between culture and nature, an absence of continuous critical enquiry, both at a professional level and at an academic level, weakens it. Almost a decade has passed since I examined the role of philosophy and design in landscape architecture education, and from what I have witnessed as an educator, there is still a deficiency of rigour of inquiry. As such, one must ask: where is the leadership in landscape architecture, and are we remaining true to ourselves as designers, if we have become complacent with that which exists? The aim of the paper is to reflect upon conclusions drawn in initial research on the topic, and to provide a forum from which that state of landscape architecture, and its relation to philosophy and design may grow.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.202 · 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