an architecture of daily life: the continuing evolution of Toronto's residential fabric
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis envisions a new way of living in the city of Toronto. It is a vision that evolves not from the ideologies on which Toronto was founded, set out over 100 years ago when all multi-family dwellings were called tenements and tenements were considered, among other things, immoral. Instead, it is a vision founded on a city that has seen immense change over the last century, and faces an even greater rate of change over the next. Our city prides itself on its cultural and social diversity, yet, architecturally, we still struggle to adapt within a fabric of single-family homes. The Dutch provide an edifying example of an architecture of daily life, embodied by their attitude toward issues of privacy, toward traffic, toward work and play. Based on a case study of housing in the Netherlands, a country that has successfully and creatively adapted to the demands of housing in a climate of rapid immigration and a diversifying population, this thesis proposes new, high density urban housing typologies for the city of Toronto. This new vision for the city serves not only to add the necessary density to our existing neighbourhoods, but to foster a strong community life and to provoke new ideas about urban living.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".