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 \nis not only activated or animated by its community but also inspires its community to be more active \nwithin the city’s culture. Drawing upon the concept of Projective Architecture as coined by Sarah \nWhiting and Robert Somol, the proposed art centre would respond to and with its surrounding \ncontext to focus on its effects on the social condition of the surrounding community.1 \n The proposed \ninstitution would facilitate the community’s engagement by a layering of substrates, filters, light, film \nand video projections, by an interactive exterior screen-like facade system, to reveal the movements \nof the art centre and its art film-making residency program artists. This second-skin surrounding \nthe abandoned General Hospital building in Sudbury would facilitate views to the landscape beyond \nconnecting the visitors with the surrounding Northern city through an unusual and interesting lens. \nFilm and video art, haptic diagramming, conceptual object making and immersive installation art all \nserved in the research-creation process to determine the aesthetics and ideologies of the proposed \nart centre. Focused on an active reciprocal engagement between the community and emerging arts \nartists, 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".