MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626349734

Future Campus: Design Quality in University Buildings

2017· article· en· W2626349734 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacquie Thomarat, Colin Tennent

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning for higher education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyHigher educationPublic relationsArgument (complex analysis)PremiseQuality (philosophy)Government (linguistics)Space (punctuation)Plan (archaeology)Subject (documents)Political scienceLibrary scienceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

by Ian Taylor, ed. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] RIBA Publishing 2016 142 pages ISBN: 9781-85946-610-0 INTRODUCTION IN THIS ARTICLE, we review the book Future Campus: Design Quality in University Buildings. The central argument of this book is that vibrant student- and researcher-oriented university campus requires robust, effective, stimulating, and quality space design. This is conclusion of consequence for campus planners confronting contrary attitudes from university and government decision makers who question the resource intensiveness of the physical plant. This conclusion is significant after over decade of debate regarding the value of this space given the expansion of virtual learning. We recommend Future Campus as primer on the subject; to those tasked with contributing to master planning exercise (particularly anyone new to the endeavor), this book provides insight and encouragement. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Future Campus explores through practical essays how effective planning and design can be achieved on university campuses and offers valuable introduction to the topic of campus design in an attractive and accessible manner for an array of audiences. The book presents collection of articles intended to inspire and enhance collaboration and conversation around the campus master plan. The anticipated audience is the public, academics, architects, community members, students, professionals, planners, and other university stakeholders. Following from the premise that the university campus matters, the authors contend that the design of the campus first and foremost must derive from the academic priorities (the strategic plan) of the institution. From there, the physical expression of that purpose, pedagogically and socially, will be more readily revealed for each building, the entire campus, and the public areas between buildings. The authors of Future Campus raise questions pertinent to this goal and provide case studies proffering viable solutions. Intersecting perspectives and varied approaches to the study of capital planning in higher education are presented and organized into four sections, each of which is introduced with thought-provoking opinion piece: (1) context and master planning, (2) spaces, (3) briefing, design, and construction, and (4) value and performance. The book concludes with four case studies that illustrate the authors' findings. First, those responsible for university master planning are encouraged in Future Campus to pursue an ethos of flexibility and sustainability in the rapidly changing environment of higher education. Anticipating the future of our campuses may appear to be a mug's game, but failing to participate in the game is perhaps more so. Conversely, campus planners are pressed to maintain stability and consistency as they develop long-term master plans. In order to overcome these challenges, the authors emphasize the need for collaborative planning processes that engage users, builders, funders, designers, and decision makers. The opinion piece entitled Briefing to Occupation: London Centre for Nanotechnology by Gabriel Aeppli makes case for the design process itself benefiting from an interdisciplinary approach accomplished through the involvement of end users. Next, Future Campus ponders the relationship of universities to their neighboring communities, the context for capital planning. The master planner attempts to understand the spatial typologies needed to facilitate innovative teaching goals, the degree of flexibility needed in those typologies, and how an attitude of sustainability might be imbued in master plan. Most campuses in the United States, Canada, and the European Union concede an abundance of mid-century infrastructure that creates significant challenges for technical planning and in funding plans. Developing master plans that breathe new life into old facilities while balancing tight budgets and myriad standards of environmental performance can be elusive. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlanning for higher educationSame topicEducational Environments and Student OutcomesFrench-language works237,207