MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294300429 · doi:10.51347/jum.v11i1.3932

Townscape assessment: the development of a practical tool for monitoring and assessing visual quality in the built environment

2006· article· en· W4294300429 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Morphology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Lottery Heritage FundOxford Brookes University
KeywordsArchitectural engineeringQuality (philosophy)Work (physics)Built environmentEngineeringEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementCivil engineeringGeographyEnvironmental scienceEpistemologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Townscape’ as an approach to understanding one aspect of quality in the built environment has had mixed fortunes over the last few decades. Nonetheless, it remains a useful category within which the question of how places work at an aesthetic level can be considered. The problem has been, however, the absence of a comprehensive and relatively objective system for recording and representing the findings from townscape evaluation in the field. This paper presents the evolution of one such approach, and illustrates how it has been applied as part of a more general impact assessment research project to determine the effectiveness of the Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) regeneration programme in the UK. The paper concludes with a discussion of the utility of the method for future built environment monitoring and evaluation programmes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.208 · 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