Alternative building materials and community development: Are building regulations limiting the potential for more affordable, efficient homes in Ontario?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are a number of issues being faced today as a global society. Most of these issues cross over numerous disciplines, which for most of history have been examined in silos as separate and unrelated systems (Brigg, 2007). These issues are the social, environmental, and economic issues of poverty, housing, energy, transportation, community, food security, environmental degradation and others. There is a growing understanding that issues of a social, environmental, and economic nature are, in fact, very interconnected to each of those realms and with other issues. The inspiration for this document is from the acknowledgment of this fact. Housing is just one example of an issue that transcends any singular disciplinary realm (Edward & Turrent, 2000). Housing fulfills at least one of our basic human needs of shelter, and arguably fulfills more as it is often the vessel for other needs such as food, water, and energy. However, as this paper will explore, many individuals do not have access to appropriate housing due to socioeconomic circumstances. Pertinent questions must be asked of our current housing development: Is the housing currently provided by the vast majority of western society environmentally and socially appropriate? If not, is it possible housing may contribute to issues of poverty or inadequate access to housing? The goal of this paper is to (1) highlight the benefits of alternative versus conventional materials, and (2) determine if alternative construction designs would be beneficial for community development and what processes would be undertaken to incorporate them into normative practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
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.
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".