MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110838221 · doi:10.35784/odk.2085

Rekonstrukcja rdzennego dziedzictwa architektonicznego

2020· article· en· W3110838221 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nancy Mackin

Bibliographic record

VenueProtection of cultural heritage · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitecturePrideEnthusiasmConstruct (python library)IndigenousResource (disambiguation)HistoryGeographyArchitectural engineeringEngineeringPolitical scienceEcologyArchaeologyComputer sciencePsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long resident peoples including Gwich’in, Inuvialuit, Copper Inuit, and Sami, Coast Salish and others have learned over countless generations of observation and experimentation to construct place-specific, biomimetic architecture. To learn more about the heritage value of long-resident peoples’ architecture, and to discover how their architecture can selectively inform adaptable architecture of the future. we engaged Inuit and First Nations knowledge-holders and young people in reconstructing tradition-based shelters and housing. During the reconstructions, children and Elders alike expressed their enthusiasm and pride in the inventiveness and usefulness of their ancestral architectural wisdom. Several of the structures constructed during this research are still standing years later and continue to serve as emergency shelters for food harvesters. During extreme weather, the shelters contribute to a potentially widespread network of food harvester dwellings that would facilitate revitalization of traditional foodways. The reconstructions indicate that building materials, forms, assembly technologies, and other considerations from the architecture of Indigenous peoples provide a valuable heritage resource for architects of the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.090 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProtection of cultural heritageSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207