Projective architecture: an approach to building an immersive Art Centre for Sudbury, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores the design for an art centre in Sudbury, Ontario in which the architecture is not only activated or animated by its community but also inspires its community to be more active within the city’s culture. Drawing upon the concept of Projective Architecture as coined by Sarah Whiting and Robert Somol, the proposed art centre would respond to and with its surrounding context to focus on its effects on the social condition of the surrounding community.1 The proposed institution would facilitate the community’s engagement by a layering of substrates, filters, light, film and video projections, by an interactive exterior screen-like facade system, to reveal the movements of the art centre and its art film-making residency program artists. This second-skin surrounding the abandoned General Hospital building in Sudbury would facilitate views to the landscape beyond connecting the visitors with the surrounding Northern city through an unusual and interesting lens. Film and video art, haptic diagramming, conceptual object making and immersive installation art all served in the research-creation process to determine the aesthetics and ideologies of the proposed art centre. Focused on an active reciprocal engagement between the community and emerging arts artists, the centre seeks to breed new genres of Northern Ontario art.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".