Good design- A case for adopting a user centred approach to medium density housing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary urban design theory has, for the past quarter century, favoured medium density compact forms of residential development (medium density) over low density urban typologies as being more sustainable. Similarly, governments have imposed building standards specifically aimed at improving the environmental efficiency, or ‘green design’, of residential dwellings. However, the migration towards more compact, sustainable urban developments has been slow despite regulatory pressure. In Australia, the average house size has doubled over nearly fifty years while occupant numbers have almost halved in this period (per capita averages (ABS 2010)). This research traces the emergence of the compact housing agenda in Australian cities with a particular reference to the early experiments in Canberra during the early 1960s and 1970s. The case is then established to argue that the combination of changing attitudes to housing, and the increased knowledge in the Architectural community set the scene for new design typologies to emerge during that period. While ‘green' house design was understood as beneficial to the user experience, a gap remains between findings on user satisfaction and the design outcomes of more compact housing typologies.
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 | 0.053 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".