MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964654072 · doi:10.25916/sut.26215391

Relaxed and Comfortable: The Australian Pavilion at Expo '67

2024· article· en· W6964654072 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and biodiversity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPavilionExhibitionPaintingNatural (archaeology)ChinaGeorge (robot)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expo '67, Montreal, was the first international exhibition Australia had attended since the 1939 New York World's Fair. In New York, Australia promoted its export industries in timber and wool in an annex next to the British pavilion. In Montreal, Australia contributed its own major pavilion, a simple, rectangular box of glass and steel. Inside, the pavilion contained few actual exhibits. The main feature of its spacious interior was a salon-style arrangement of two hundred and forty lounge chairs created by the Australian designers Grant and Mary Featherston from an idea by the exhibit designer Robin Boyd. Visitors sat in the chairs to activate short, taped interviews with prominent Australians on aspects of Australian life and achievement, delivered though stereophonic speakers in the chairs' headrests. Occasional tables stood nearby, bearing books on Australian society and ashtrays of a modern Australian design. One wall of the main exhibition hall featured a row of modernist paintings by leading Australian artists. Natural light streamed into the pavilion through its glazed north and south faces, which provided sweeping views across the exhibition site. Quality Australian wool carpet covered the pavilion's floors and some internal walls, muffling incoming noise and adding to the general feeling of repose.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.236 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)Same topicEcology and biodiversity studiesFrench-language works237,207