Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the difference between the ways that nature functions and the way that the built environment is currently produced and operates, and if and how they can be realigned. While regenerative approaches can apply to a range of human enterprises, the paper focuses on their application to the production of the urban built environment. It examines if and how they may move into mainstream building practice and how long this may take given the inherent inertias in the building industry. Key issues include the recasting and interrogating of the accumulated knowledge held by design professionals within a broader living systems frame, and rethinking what constitutes a successful outcome of building design. Such efforts are set against the diminishing time available before a series of climate tipping points are crossed and further short- to mid-term constraints posed by a host of other powerful countervailing forces. Practice relevance A critique of emerging regenerative practices is provided with an overview of both the challenges facing design professionals moving them into mainstream building practices, and the opportunities it provides them. Rather than viewing their work as solely reducing environmental impact, regenerative practices offer architects and planners a positive casting and expansion of their responsibilities. They enable design professionals to both contribute in the bringing about of systems-level change and to provide inhabitants with greater opportunities and pathways to both navigate an uncertain future and re-establish, reconnect and co-evolve with natural systems.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".