Thriving with water: Developments in amphibious architecture in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing awareness worldwide that traditional flood-mitigation strategies that attempt to control the flow of water only increase the likelihood of catastrophic consequences in the long run, when failure inevitably occurs after years of complacency and development behind flood barriers. Amphibious architecture is a non-defensive flood mitigation and climate change adaptation strategy that works in synchrony with a floodprone region’s natural cycles of flooding, allowing water to flow rather than creating an obstruction. Since the height to which an amphibious building rises is not necessarily fixed but adapts to the variable depth of flood water, amphibiation can accommodate rising sea levels and land subsidence as well. Amphibious retrofitting can provide measurable cost savings compared to other flood mitigation strategies, performing well in loss avoidance studies for both flood and wind damage. An amphibious approach to planning and construction recognizes the beneficial aspects of seasonal and occasional flooding, allowing us not merely to live with water, but to thrive with it. This paper reviews case studies of both existing and proposed amphibious buildings, with discussion of their systems and components. It also discusses the limitations of amphibious construction, some of the regulatory obstacles that have discouraged its development, and possible paths forward. The first International Conference on Amphibious Architecture, Design and Engineering, ICAADE 2015, was held in Bangkok, Thailand, in August 2015. The second, ICAADE 2017, will convene at the University of Waterloo in Canada in June 2017.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".