MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3086570200 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11322

The Changing Face of Canada’s Parliament Buildings: An Analysis of the Visual Representations Produced Between 1859 and 1927

2016· dissertation· en· W3086570200 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Steinhauer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentPrecinctContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Plan (archaeology)Architectural engineeringFunction (biology)Face (sociological concept)PoliticsSociologyEngineeringPolitical scienceGeographyLawSocial scienceArchaeologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As we understand it today, Parliament Hill bears little resemblance to how it was seen or experienced in the past.Constructed between 1859 and 1927, the Parliamentary Precinct consists of a building grouping of singular architectural importance.The thesis examines the interplay between the original and added building components, and explores the change in function and situatedness of each building.The visual representations examined within this thesis permit an analysis of the Parliamentary Precinct both within and outside of the context of the new Centre Block.Following the emergence of a new primary façade, the analysis of the visual material points to a break of the original symmetrical building plan.Four distinct building elevations present a building grouping that once extended beyond one principal façade, but gradually emerged into a monumental façade synonymous today with Ottawa, the Government of Canada, and Canada itself.Works of architecture do not stand motionless on the shore of the stream of history, but are borne along by it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→