MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237915357 · doi:10.22215/etd/2021-14521

Geologic Atmospheres

2021· dissertation· en· W4237915357 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sophie Ganan Gavela

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture and Computational Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMateriality (auditing)AnthropoceneArchitecturePlan (archaeology)Earth scienceArchitectural engineeringAestheticsEngineeringGeologyArchaeologyHistoryArtPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis positions atmospheres as integral to architecture due to its inherent sensorial experience. Material explorations of atmospheric generators deem materiality, reflection, and transparency as central to the creation of atmospheres in architecture. This thesis suggests that to design within a contemporary Anthropocene requires engaging with the geologic. Material questions of the geologic tie with theories of the neo-sublime, particularly in post-industrial landscapes. This thesis asks, how concepts of both the atmospheric and the geologic inform a design investigation in post-industrial landscapes? This is explored in three ways. First, through exploration of select theorists and architects work. Second, through a series of physical models studying aggregates, casting, and extraction. Finally, through the design of a remediation in Tar Island, Alberta. The thesis suggests that to engage with the atmospheric in design today entails engaging with its reciprocal condition, the geologic, and that using physical models enables engagement between the two.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchitecture and Computational DesignFrench-language works237,207