MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362513241 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-15372

Marketing Architecture in Canada: Exploring the Architecture Profession's Understanding and Use of Marketing: 1955 - 1985 to Present

2022· dissertation· en· W4362513241 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brynne Campbell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignStrongQueen's UniversityUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversitySimon Fraser University
KeywordsArchitectureContext (archaeology)ConversationPublic relationsPromotion (chess)Marketing mixMarketing researchValue (mathematics)MarketingPolitical scienceSociologyBusinessHistoryArtVisual artsLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marketing, which includes the process of communicating and delivering value to its target audience, has struggled to find its footing within the architecture profession. Researchers have suggested that architects believe it is unprofessional to be associated with business and marketing. The term 'marketing' has often been used pejoratively in the books, professional journals, and documents written for and by architects. Professional architectural associations and advocacy organizations have perpetuated an urgency to properly communicate the value of architecture and the architect's role. However, the ethical guidelines have made promoting architecture and architects' roles challenging to implement. The shifting rules imposed by associations regarding marketing have contributed to the profession's persistent disassociation with marketing. This dissertation looks at the historical conversations regarding marketing within the context of contemporary questions raised through the 'project of architecture' -POP // CAN // CRIT 2017: Marketing and Promotion of Architecture in Canada, which took place on October 27, 2017, in Toronto, Canada. This national symposium brought together professionals in the architecture industry to discuss the role of marketing within the Canadian architecture industry. It sought to open the conversation on marketing for the profession and serves as a resource for the dissertation research.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.016
Science and technology studies0.0490.025
Scholarly communication0.0180.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207