Housing and the City: Supporting the Process of Aging in Place Through the Development of Architectural Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the baby boomer generation ages, there is a growing senior population across Canada and a shift in demographics that raises the issue of how to better provide appropriate housing for the aging population while maintaining their quality of life.Estimates show that by 2024, individuals aged 65 year and older will account for 20.1% of the population in Canada 1 .Generally, housing options include staying at home, assisted living, or moving into institutional care, however, what is the middle ground between residing at home and moving into institutional care?What is to be done with the existing housing stock?How can we adapt existing residential dwellings and neighborhoods to support the process of aging in place?This thesis explores how buildings can be adapted to support the process of aging in place through the development of guidelines and details.The proposal is situated within the context of existing mid-to high-rise dwellings in Ottawa, Ontario, but is intended to be implemented in new construction as well as retrofits of dwellings.1 Canada's population estimates: Age and sex, July 1, 2015.http://www.statcan.gc.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".