MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118952056 · doi:10.1177/1059712320983050

Letting the affordances fool around: architectural space from the users’ point of view

2021· article· en· W3118952056 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdaptive Behavior · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffordanceSpace syntaxSpace (punctuation)Point (geometry)Computer scienceField (mathematics)Virtual spaceEpistemologySociologyAestheticsHuman–computer interactionCognitive sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophyPure mathematicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Erik Rietveld’s lecture describes the creation of architectural works from the point of view of the architects. We are curious about architectural space as a living system: what happens once the architects have left? We introduce the space syntax notion of virtual community, and suggest that this is compatible with Rietveld’s distinction between the field and the landscape of affordances.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.194 · 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