MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255952149 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14648001

Growing an Architecture: an exploration of form and materiality as catalysts to reurbanize and empower rural Tanzanian communities

2021· preprint· en· W4255952149 on OpenAlexaff
Kara Green

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMateriality (auditing)UrbanizationEmpowermentTanzaniaEconomic growthArchitecturePolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental planningEconomicsAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tanzanian rural migrants moving to cities in search of opportunity have triggered the country’s rapid urbanization. Many migrants, particularly women, are not empowered by the rural-to-urban move and suffer from a degraded quality of life. The rural landscape suffers environmental degradation due to deforestation resulting from the need to supply materials to the rapidly growing urban fabric. This thesis asserts that balance must be achieved between urban and rural development. It posits that balance will be attained by empowering rural communities through the provision of an architectural program, which responds to the communities needs, such as a clinic, primary school, and women's empowerment centre. The research explores the relationships between the contemporary discourses on development, on vernacular architecture, on the changing nature of the profession, and most importantly, on the catalytic potential of form and materiality. The above will be put to test in the representative community of North Muleba in rural Tanzania.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 topicUrban and Rural Development ChallengesFrench-language works237,207