Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter presents the significant departure from the current dialogue on coding and scripting in landscape architecture, which tends to consider how such technology is used in site design—for instance. It explores geographic information systems (GIS) for site analysis, Grasshopper for parametric design, and digital fabrication tools like laser cutting and 3D milling for topographic representation. The Canada Land Inventory (CLI) commissioned maps of the country&s;s agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation, and wildlife the Arctic, and to manage this data a team led by Roger Tomlinson created the Canadian Geographic System, which is considered by many to be the model on which contemporary GIS systems are based. Landscape architects played a central role in developing GIS technologies and establishing their widespread use. Computer-aided design and GIS remained the primary computational tools used by landscape architects until the late 1990s and early 2000s, when parametric design software, newly championed by architects, opened up the potential for linking geospatial data to formal output.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.010 |
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.
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".