Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis will examine the interaction between constructed environments and individuals through an exploratory design process.Through the investigation of past and contemporary architecture processes, this research will question our sensorial experience of built space: how scale impacts our perception, material influences our choices, architectural element can create a feeling of belonging, and how conception of a designed space impacts quality of life.Explored through twelve vignettes: Context, Shared Space, Behaviour, House, Home, Belonging, Scale, Material, Qualities, Poetic, Dialogue, and Happiness this project aims to apply these themes to the design of a small family house.This single family detached home with a floor area of approximately one hundred square meters will be situated in eastern Quebec, on the coast of the Gaspe Bay.Through the design of this house I will study how the qualities of what is construct can be the dialogue between occupant and space. PrologueMy aspiration as a student in architecture and as a future architect is to design space where one can feel plenitude, comfort, and at home.This thesis is an investigation on the architectural design process.The twelve vignettes are twelve ways of looking at how we act in concert with the way we create homes.As Zumthor said in Thinking Architecture: "to a large degree, designing is based on understanding and establishing systems of order." 1 Which I am modestly trying to achieve through this thesis.There is no one truth in this process, truth is plural here, and prone to change with time and practice.I will explore how a practice of architecture can be human centric as oppose to a practice that answered only to a program based on impersonal checklists of minimum requirements.Through examination of case studies where the requirements in terms of square meters were met, but no social space were planned with the user in mind.In social housing cases (Pruitt Igoe, St. Louis; Regent Park, Toronto; etc.) where an ideal master plan or complex was elaborated but none of the social aspects were functioning and the buildings ended up being overall inhumane.These issues apply to small housing as well.Only answering to requirement will create space but my goal is to create good spaces while trying to answer to both needs, and desires of the client.A small family should be able to live in a home that reflects their necessities but can also prepare, incline or even accentuate enjoyment.This research is significant because critical thinking and exploration are essential to stimulate creativity and innovate in architecture.It helps us, students, designers, architects, define and create elements through investigative lenses.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".