Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the transition spaces for homes between inside and outside designed by architects during the early twentieth century in the United States. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, the plan book became a readily available option for those wishing to build their own home in the U.S. Following a shortage of single-family houses after World War I, the design of small, single-family houses were distributed primarily through the plan book vehicle. One such plan book-producing group was the Architects' Small House Service Bureau (ASHSB). The bureau was composed entirely of registered architects and produced multiple folios of small house plans between 1914 and 1942. This paper focuses specifically on the relationship between the interior spaces and outdoors through the use of loggias, pergolas, sun porches, bay windows and other devices. The ASHSB was unique in that they promoted customization of their mass-produced house plan designs to each individual site. Thus, unlike many other plan book creators, ASHSB members determined that the relationship to the site was important to the overall design and the use of these transitional indoor/outdoor spaces, a necessity. The plans designed by ASHSB members fell into one of three sizes ” four-room, five-room or six-room plan types. The maximum number of principal rooms was six. All small house designs were presented within a rendered landscaped setting showing trees, bushes, benches and other landscaping features. At least one of the following -- porticoes, porches, dormers, bay windows, picture windows, port coheres, and sun porches”was used in every design produced by the ASHSB architect members. This work examines the range and type of spaces as well as the written recommendations and specifications that accompanied plan sets distributed by the ASHSB across the U.S and Canada during the early twentieth century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".