MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388507343 · doi:10.59490/footprint.11.2.1903

Strategies for Living in Houses

2017· article· en· W4388507343 on OpenAlexaff
Colin Ripley

Bibliographic record

VenueFOOTPRINT · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueerContradictionCapeGender studiesHegemonySociologyAestheticsArtHistoryPolitical scienceArchaeologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of queer housing can never go away because it is a central component of queerness. Queer housing is a contradiction in terms: not even a queer architect can design a queer house. But where does this leave us, as queer people living in a straight hegemony? Where does it leave us as humans with bodies, craving shelter and safety and a place to live that is in accordance with our experience of self and of living in the world? In this article the author proposes eight architectural strategies for re-occupying the Levittown Cape Cod house from 1947 for queer bodies, minds and hearts. These strategies offer modes by which the key programmatic formal and material components of the Cape Cod House can be attacked, made invalid, or détourned for queer uses, to make of the Cape Cod House a site for our pain, our longing, our anger.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFOOTPRINTSame topicUrbanization and City PlanningFrench-language works237,207