Building 94 - Canada Agriculture and Food Museum - Central Experimental Farm - Integrated Project Dossier (2019)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building 94, located on the Experimental Farm, was originally constructed for the creation and testing of technologically advanced machinery and agricultural materials. The building sheds light on an important time in Canadian history when there was a shift from manual labor to mechanized labor. As an early research centre, this building emphasizes the importance of Canadian agriculture as well as the advancement of knowledge in such a field. The building itself holds architectural, environmental and historic values. Designed in 1935 by the Federal Department of Public Works the Agricultural Engineering Building was completed in 1936. In just one year, an entire collection of specimens was ready to be showcased and the museum opened. In 1997 the building achieved its designation as a Federal Heritage Building, and shortly after became public space and offices on behalf of the Natural Museum of Science and Technology in 2002. After a retrofit and adaptive reuse in 2012 the main space became a learning centre for the Canada Agriculture and Food Museum. 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 2019.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.028 |
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".