Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unsustainable nature of New Zealand’s ongoing suburban expansion is reflected by our self-entitled obsession with owning space or land. In a survey commissioned by Mitre 10 (Mitre 10, 2014), 1500 New Zealanders were asked for their opinions of the size of backyards and how they use them. “Most survey respondents, 84 per cent, agreed they liked the idea of the traditional Kiwi quarter-acre paradise - a large plot of land with a standalone house on it, and almost all said they would rather live on the traditional quarter-acre section than in high-density housing.” (Small, 2014) The backyard is a classic space that New Zealanders feel entitled to possess ownership, but if all we require is “enough room for a barbecue” and want “a bit of grass out the back” then we are consuming more space than we need. (Small, 2014) Here, begins an argument for a change in planning.Living in closer and more compact cities has been the catalyst to a more life-filled and active space in American and European cities. But close and compact are not typical to the vernacular in New Zealand. A hybrid form of city living could be found by experimenting with the typical New Zealand suburban lifestyle in urban spaces. By doing so more New Zealanders may decide to live in these new urban spaces. This research explores how a dense urban settlement can integrate the suburban model of a backyard to help facilitate better living spaces in Wellington. Smoothing the barrier between public and privatised space will help these spaces become more appropriated for encouraging human interaction and eventually promoting a sense of ownership and community over the shared backyard space.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".