MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200158635 · doi:10.47818/drarch.2021.v2si036

To integrate or not to integrate? A matter of choice for universities

2021· article· en· W4200158635 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafeguardingPublic relationsPremiseContext (archaeology)Inclusion (mineral)Asset (computer security)LivelihoodPolitical scienceFacilitatorSociologyBusinessGeographySocial scienceComputer scienceAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the right location for a university campus? Universities have a preponderant role in today’s societal models. They have been in the core of development — economic, social, sustainable, inter alia — and their role within urban context has changed in order to respond to the university mission — that nowadays includes of civic engagement as well as a stronger participation in economies, through the development of startups and innovation ecosystems. This paper relies on the premise that, even in a post-pandemic world, the Campus is still a window to the world, it can shape the perception people have of the University, can be used as a branding asset and, most of all, impacts the lives of everyone living, learning, and working there. The Campus is a very powerful tool, one that universities worldwide have been using as a way of positioning themselves, of attracting students and faculty, and also creating synergies and relationships with companies. It shapes the relationships created inside and outside of it. As such, this research argues that universities can be key elements in generating and enabling dynamic synergies, promoting the presence of students, academics, and learning spaces in urban contexts. To accomplish this, universities should preserve their spatial identity and uniqueness, while guaranteeing the existence of adequate places for all learning related activities and embodying inclusion and sustainable development, promoting encounters and interaction. These two needs, for inclusion and livelihood while safeguarding some privacy coexist creating some tension for all campus users. With this issue in mind, this paper explores an analytical framework for university campuses within urban fabrics, understanding the different types of urban insertion and connections established with local and regional players, and exploring the dichotomy between closeness centrality and betweenness centrality, as variables than can be used to balance the tension between integration and privacy that affects university campuses and academic communities worldwide. Four compact university campuses that host similar functions are used to test the methodology: Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada; Aalto University in Espoo, Finland; MIT in Cambridge, MA, USA; and Yale University, in New Haven, USA. This paper relies on syntactic analysis to provide deeper information and some clarification on the university location and accessibility within the urban fabrics.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · 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