MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A CASE STUDY IN DOCUMENTATION PRODUCTION AS LEARNING TOOLS BENEFITTING MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS

2017· article· en· W2745457820 on OpenAlexaffabout
Titania Truesdale, B. Hierlihy, P. Jouan

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsTraffic Injury Research Foundation
FundersGetty Foundation
KeywordsDocumentationStakeholderPlan (archaeology)Cultural heritageCommissionResource (disambiguation)Presentation (obstetrics)ArchitectureArchitectural engineeringPublic relationsPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer scienceHistoryArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The Fondation Strutt Foundation has taken on the conservation planning of the Strutt House as part of a P3 collaborative effort with the National Capital Commission (NCC). This paper will address three of the primary documents/data sets (documentary methodologies) being used on/for the Strutt House project. The Strutt House is a Recognized Federal Heritage Building and a significant example of Canadian modernist architecture. Stakeholder is a term often used in Architectural Projects reflecting an economic interest in success of the project. In conservation projects the stakeholder generally reflects social, cultural and/or economic interests in a given project. The Strutt House project has benefitted from stakeholders that have all been interested in the above, as well as the education of our future conservationists. The Strutt house was purchased from the architect’s daughter in 2010, and as part of the acquisition, a Heritage Structure Report was commissioned and produced by PTAH Consultants Inc., Architects. The report forms the first of the primary referenced documents of this paper, including: a comprehensive photographic record of existing conditions; and, a building simulation model of the house ‘as designed/built’. This HSR and the accompanying data/documents have been adopted as the basis of an evolving document in the development of the Conservation Plan including: additional heritage surveys and technologies; traditional drawings, photographic and video records; and, a series of workshops on the structural stabilization efforts, thermography scans, and smoke/blow-door (air pressure) testing. In 2016, Pierre Jouan, a Master’s thesis student from KU Leuvan, working with the Carleton University CIMS lab under the direction of Professor Mario Santana, and the FSF completed a 3-D scanning and photogrammetry workshop on the Strutt House and created a building information model (BIM model) from the collected data. The three primary documentation processes being addressed in this paper are really a series of directed research or focussed investigations resulting in a collection of data sets resolved -or combined- into a document. They will assist in the development of the long-term Programming and Conservation Management Plan of the Strutt House.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207