MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137921820 · doi:10.1108/arch-09-2020-0176

Assessing the post-occupancy performance of educational design/build: the thinking while doing initiative

2021· article· en· W3137921820 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen Verderber

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Architectural Research Archnet-IJAR · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-occupancy evaluationContext (archaeology)ScholarshipOriginalityCurriculumPsychologyPedagogySociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Educational design/build (e-d/b) curricula in university-level professional schools of architecture have flourished in recent years, internationally, as new programs are launched and the volume of built work increases dramatically. This growing body of built work, however, has typically not been subjected to rigorous behavioral assessment from the standpoint of what is actually built, as experienced through the eyes of user-recipients in the everyday milieu. The lack of rigor in this aspect of assessing the efficacy of what gets built continues to hinder evidence-based academic scholarship on this subject. Design/methodology/approach An interdisciplinary research initiative titled Thinking While Doing, spanning the years 2013–2019, centered on exploring the inner profundities of e-d/b. As part of a multifaceted project involving seven universities in Canada and the United States, behaviorally focused post-occupancy assessments were conducted of three open-air pavilion structures from the viewpoint of 161 respondents' impressions, degree of satisfaction and everyday uses. Findings Functionality, community context, materiality and aesthetic factors were among the set of variables analyzed. Among the results, the three open air pavilions were viewed as tectonically sound and aesthetically iconic and were considered to be valued additions to their immediate physical contexts and local community. Research limitations/implications Study limitations and directions for future research are discussed. Practical implications Student learning objectives in relation to the design intent of the built structures are highlighted. Social implications This evidence-based design research empowers stakeholders seeking campus-community partnership opportunities. Originality/value This is the first comparative, behaviorally focused appraisal of its type from the perspective of everyday user-recipients in the realm of e-d/b.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Architectural Research Archnet-IJARSame topicEducational Environments and Student OutcomesFrench-language works237,207