MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Domestic Architecture As a Mode of Separation

2017· other· en· W4232576708 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Annmarie Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueCompanion to the History of Architecture · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsFraming (construction)ArchitectureMode (computer interface)Middle classSociologyClass (philosophy)Architectural engineeringGeographyCivil engineeringVisual artsPolitical scienceEngineeringLawArtComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A common image of the Victorian home tends toward being one of family togetherness, but it also functioned as a sophisticated mode of separation. A distinctive room arrangement separated householders by activity, age, social class, and gender. Rooms were closely associated with individual family members and became vehicles for husbands, wives, children, and servants to express family hierarchies. Hallways and stairways mediated particular forms of spatial togetherness, notably separating family members from live‐in servants. This was achieved through two separate circulation systems within the building, as well as especially scaled‐down rooms. The sheer scale of Victorian houses, the framing of the buildings by decorative landscapes, and house location (for example in suburbia) isolated the family from its neighbors and from the surrounding urban environment. Cues from hospital architects inspired ways to maximize fresh air in the middle‐class house, as a way to fight the spread of disease and to express awareness of scientific knowledge.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCompanion to the History of ArchitectureSame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207