MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248028545 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14668059

A Concrete Approach: Recontextualizing Brutalism Through Threshold Design

2021· preprint· en· W4248028545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Kotewicz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture, Modernity, and Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvercrowdingArchitectureArchitectural engineeringUrban sprawlContext (archaeology)Point (geometry)Identity (music)Space (punctuation)Scale (ratio)Civil engineeringAestheticsUrban planningComputer scienceGeographyEngineeringPolitical scienceCartographyGeometryLawMathematicsArtArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overcrowding, pollution and sprawl of the modern city outgrows and distorts its original framework. The building, land, and street relationship becomes a focal point in designing for the human scale. The existing urban fabric shifts along with society. Built many years ago, the buildings lack evident design strategies that successfully integrate the surrounding context with its architecture. By redefining threshold as a three-dimensional human experience rather than a point, line, or moment in space, the threshold and surrounding framework becomes significant in adapting the building to meet contemporary social agendas. There becomes a necessity to blur the boundaries between its architecture and environment integrating both the interior and exterior to appropriate the human scale. The ability to preserve these decaying forms through the means of threshold design will effectively contribute to Toronto’s Identity as a whole and successfully play a more significant role in an ever-changing modern city

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.026
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.171 · 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, Modernity, and DesignFrench-language works237,207