Integration | Innovation | Inclusion: Values, Variables and the Design of Human Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complexity, complication, contradiction, consumption, confusion, delusion, depression. Opportunity, inspiration, ingenuity, compassion, wisdom. Our world is perplexing, our times are fast moving, and our choices are many. To find an appropriate path is a daunting yet vital challenge that confronts us as individuals, as communities, and as a civilization. How sustainable is our world? How reasonable are our behaviors? The present article is a collection of thoughts on a series of intertwined issues related to the contemporary world, its environmental dimensions, and their present-day problems. The goal is to survey the landscape through a lens of Environmental Design, to provide some perspectives, to raise some questions, and to explore systems, beliefs, and values informing and influencing actions. It is important to consider how people's belief systems influence, inform, and shape actions. This holds true in realms political, spiritual, and cultural. It also proves relevant in the ways in which we imagine, design, develop, and construct our buildings, cities, spaces, and places.Appropriate solutions to some of our most daunting problems will arise through the concerted efforts, open dialogue, and collective wisdom of the wide array of stakeholders, professionals, politicians, decision makers, and citizens (both engaged and disenfranchised) who have the will and wherewithal to make a difference and to make the world safer, healthier, and better. It seems vital for us to critically examine, and question, our belief systems and their connections to the ways we define, refine, and realize progress. Architecture and Environmental Design, in both a philosophical and a practical sense, reflect as well as form greater aspirations, directions, and events of our times.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".