Rosemount Public Library - Integrated Project Dossier (2016)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rosemount Library serves as an example of Beaux-Arts Architecture, an architectural style that was widely popular in Ottawa at the turn of the 20th century. However, many of the Beaux-Arts features of the original library were compromised during the 1982 renovation; it was in fact this renovation that continues to deny the building a heritage designation. Thus, the significance of the building lies primarily in its history and modern-day context. Rosemount Library was initially the second Carnegie Library constructed in Ottawa, the first being the Ottawa Public Library, opened in 1906. Carnegie Libraries were a series of libraries constructed during the late 19th-early 20th century from the funds of the American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. The Rosemount branch, which was constructed in 1918, was the last library to be built during Andrew Carnegie's life as he died the following year. When the Ottawa Public Library was demolished and rebuilt in 1974, the Rosemount branch became the last standing Carnegie library in the city. This student project focused on recording the study on the first floor of the building-the reading room and the stack room. This is the Integrated Project Dossier compiled by a group of undergraduate students of the Architectural Conservation and Sustainability Program (Engineers and architects) at Carleton University for the CIVE3207 (ARCN4100) Historic Site Recording and Assessment course in 2016.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.164 | 0.061 |
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".