Retrofitting Suburban Homes for Resiliency: Design Principles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The housing options in North American suburbs will fail to meet many future housing needs. An aging population, a younger generation who prefer walkable places, economic shifts, and the environmental impacts of suburban development are all contributing factors. Suburban retrofitting is occurring or imminent in many suburbs to stave off obsolescence. Although several models exist for the sustainable development of greenfields or large swaths of land, limited models exist for the retrofitting of existing suburban housing stock. To avoid poorly-designed retrofit schemes, this research proposes retrofit design principles aimed at dividing large suburban homes into multiple housing units. A set of design guidelines and practical examples of how large suburban homes can be divided are presented for use by homeowners (or their contractors) to begin the division of a single-family home. The main goal is to equip homeowners and their contractors with the knowledge to divide homes into independent, well-designed, and livable units. Two example divisions are shown with before and after division floor plans along with an explanation of how the guidelines were applied. This research contributes to a burgeoning paradigm shift in terms of the decision-making process at all levels of regional planning, with the expectation to lead to more innovative designs for housing division projects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".