Unfamiliar Neighbours: Re-Thinking Residential Buildings for Meaningful Social Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTR A C TLoneliness and social isolation are becoming a widespread problem in Canada today. 1 Researchers have found that chronic loneliness can have similar consequences as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. 2 Yet, building regulations do little to assure mental wellbeing to the extent they regulate physical health.Centuries ago, people who lived around us would be our source of community.However, in the last 35 years the number of Canadians living alone has more than doubled, 3 and most don't know many of their neighbours.4 The current multi-unit high-rise residential building model leaves little room to meet and get to know people, ultimately forming a sense of community, security and belonging.This thesis focuses on these buildings, with their narrow hallways and awkward elevator rides.The aim is to propose an alternative which creates more socially conducive spaces through publicprivate gradation, proximity to common areas, attracting motivated residents, grouping, program, and exposure to nature. 1 Ali, What You Need to Know About the Loneliness Epidemic, 2018.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".