Bibliographic record
Abstract
Architectural records bear evidence of more than the history of design; because the construction process is linked to the social, political, and financial systems of the society in which the building activity takes place, the records also inevitably give evidence of these systems. This thesis maintains that, despite the undoubted value of these records for a diversity of research purposes, architectural records do not exist in significant numbers in Canadian archives, and argues that archivists have a professional responsibility as the makers and keepers of societal memory to encourage the growth of an adequate body of such records. The Canadian system of public archives traditionally acquires records from both public and private sources in order to accurately reflect significant functions within Canadian society; one would therefore expect to find architectural records well represented in public archival repositories. In order to test this supposition, the holdings of these records in national, regional, and local public archives were researched, using the records of British Columbia architects as a case study. The research results indicate that, if the case of British Columbia is typical of other regions of Canada, the records of private architectural practices are not well represented at any level of the Canadian archival system. A contributing factor to this scarcity is the difficulty archivists experience in appraising these records; a lack of reliable reference materials for analyzing such complex and voluminous records inhibits acquisition activity. A major part of the thesis is a functional analysis of the architectural office as a means of providing a key to the provenance of architectural records. A review and assessment of the archival literature of appraisal follows. The study concludes by summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of the literature, and by proposing a means of encouraging the growth of architectural archives.
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 | 0.043 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.045 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".