MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3111872500 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11531

Unpack Living: Housing the Working Nomad

2016· dissertation· en· W3111872500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessica Kirkham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectureWorkforceArchitectural engineeringResource (disambiguation)Work (physics)EngineeringCivil engineeringBusinessGeographyEconomic growthComputer scienceEconomicsArchaeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of resource extraction sites in Canada has created a temporary, dynamic and nomadic work force that flies back and forth between work sites and geographically distant home-base residences on a three-to-one week rotation.Worker housing takes the form of prefabricated single-storey dormitory slabs arranged on a grid.These isolated, temporary, and fixed-form housing camps have been developed to support mining developers' ever-expanding business, and constitute an inexpensive and time-efficient alternative to working towns of old.However, their repetitive and undifferentiated morphology produces alienating environments; social problems abound therein.Secondly, when the mine closes, the housing is often left behind to waste.This thesis reexamines the architecture of temporary, industry-related dwelling with a view to creating more humane dwelling environments.Taking the full cycle of the mine's life span into account, the thesis also addresses the question of how trucked-in housing can leave a lighter environmental footprint on the Canadian landscape.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeographies of human-animal interactions→French-language works237,207→