Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impetus of this thesis arose from an unfound text and the unsatisfied questions regarding the profession of architecture when I first entered the school. What exactly is an architect? What exactly does an architect do? These are questions that the young have when they consider pursuing an education in architecture - questions that are not always well answered by the media, which they are most familiar with - film. The characterization of architects in cinema continues to provide lay people with a skewed caricature of the architect - this is misleading and not the correct basis for considering a career in this field. \nThis thesis seeks to reconcile the fictional/cinema architect with the real life practitioner. Throughout the past half-century the characteristics of fictional architect Howard Roark have been perpetuated in cinema architects creating an erroneous impression of the practitioner. Through a series of interviews with Toronto architects, a documentary film was created. Analysis of the interviews provided the basis for a comparison between the actual practice of architecture and the fictional impression provided by film architects. \nThe thesis is constructed in two parts. The documentary film relates interwoven stories of seven architects. Twelve hours of interviews has been distilled down to a fifty-minute narrative revealing key common characteristics and views held by the architects. The text reviews the key content of the discourse with real life practitioners, their common characteristics and views, relating to the fictional cases. \nIt is the intention of the author that the documentary film created at the centre of this thesis could provide potential architects and the layperson with a more accurate understanding of the actuality of the profession of architecture.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".