Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1927, when the United States and Canada established their first relatively unpretentious legations in Ottawa and Washington, no one imagined how quickly they would become functionally and symbolically obsolete. By the end of World War II, both countries were seeking to expand their office space, and by the late 1960s, they were looking for ways to build new buildings. Each understood that the challenge was how most effectively to enhance the building's diplomatic presence. At the same time, planners in both capitals saw these projects as means of reinforcing the city's governmental core and promoting urbanity and civic identity. They encouraged the two governments to choose conspicuous downtown locations of great symbolic significance. Arthur Erickson designed the Canadian Embassy (1981-89), which stands on Pennsylvania Avenue at the foot of Capitol Hill, and David M. Childs headed the team at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill that designed the U. S. Embassy (1994-99) for an equally prominent site across from Ottawa's Parliament. Both architects faced daunting challenges: how to create a multipurpose structure to accommodate an array of different government offices; how to make a bold statement of national identity while showing respect for the host city and its urban design; and how to reconcile openness and accessibility with ever-increasing demands for security. This study examines architecture's role in public diplomacy and uses the two chanceries to explore the process through which design becomes purposeful civic achievement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".