Strutt House Conservation (CIVE 4918 - Capstone Project) (2016)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dataset contains the 4th year Capstone Design Project for the conservation of the Strutt House, a future use for the building was established, and appropriate interventions were designed. The report presented here, goes into detail with respect to the building conditions, its heritage value, character-defining elements, the structural analysis of the house, the design of interventions, and the feasibility of the overall project. All strategies relate back to the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and respect the character-defining elements of the building. Future direction, including recommendations to future designers on the Strutt House project and students working on future Capstone projects, are included. Nestled into the southwest edge of Gatineau Park is the family home of Canadian Architect James W. Strutt (1924-2008). Built-in 1957, the Strutt House is a split-level home consisting of three bedrooms, one and a half bathrooms, and an open concept kitchen and living space centred about the woodstove. The building’s design and materiality pay homage to the surrounding environment. Its construction in wood with large spans of glazing serves to mirror the deciduous and coniferous trees which surround the property. One of the most notable features of the House is its hyperbolic paraboloid wood roof structure, the first known example of its kind in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.065 |
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".