MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918677416 · doi:10.22215/etd/2014-10312

Designing For Destruction: Anticipating Architectural Dismantling Through the Act of Making

2014· dissertation· en· W2918677416 on OpenAlexaff
Colleen McKeracher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture, Modernity, and Design
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemolitionDeconstruction (building)ReuseArchitectural engineeringDemiseArchitectureEngineeringFocus (optics)Construction engineeringCivil engineeringForensic engineeringPolitical scienceWaste managementLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis proposes that architecture should be re-examined in terms of its own inevitable future material demise. Architects are predisposed to focus on the making and construction of buildings, and seldom consider the questions of demolition, destruction, and disassembly. However a more holistic approach to the making of buildings pursues construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction as a cyclical material system where consumption is always followed by reuse. Such an approach would result in designs that are prepared for future disassembly. Urban processes should also be considered as cyclical systems, in which periodic demolitions, and even destructions, create the conditions for urban rebirth.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchitecture, Modernity, and DesignFrench-language works237,207