MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950310209

The Final Review is a Space and Time of Performance: Implications and Alternatives

2018· review· en· W2950310209 on OpenAlexaff
Allegra Friesen, J.C. McMillan, Mona Dai

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Conference on the Beginning Design Student · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStudioArchitectureEvent (particle physics)Process (computing)Space (punctuation)Architectural engineeringComputer scienceSociologyVisual artsMathematics educationEngineeringPsychologyArtProgramming languageTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the culminating event of design studios, the Final Review directly impacts the mediums in which projects are presented, the social hierarchies of those present at the review, the types of feedback given or received, and what students learn from the process. The questions we consider around the spatial and temporal practice of the final review emerged from research around feedback and studio culture in the authors’ own school, the University of Waterloo School of Architecture (UWSA).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Conference on the Beginning Design StudentSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207