Bibliographic record
Abstract
This built project by Barber is a dense mixed-use scheme with living units along with community, work and retail spaces – all \nconfigured into an innovative terrace/courtyard hybrid typology. Research issues include how to use the program requirements \nand site conditions to generate models of high-density housing, and how to reinforce the role of urban streets as socially \ncohesive devices in the contemporary city. As such, the Donnybrook scheme should be seen as a further contribution to \ninvestigations into densified urban living, with the aim of improving urban sustainability. The notion of the street as the locus for \nsocial interaction has a long pedigree within architectural thought, as promoted by writers like Jane Jacobs and Richard \nSennett. Barber had previously designed a well-received masterplan proposal which sought created a renewed sense of street \nculture in two Dalston estates, as discussed in Building Design (9 March 2001, pp. 12-13) and Local Government News \n(July/August 2001, p. 16). \nThe Donnybrook Quarter is published in Accommodating Change (Circle 33 Housing Group, 2002) and The Buildings of \nEngland – London Vol.5: East (Yale, 2005, pp. 625-6). The scheme was positively reviewed in the architectural press, including \nBuilding Design (24 February 2006, pp. 12-15) and RIBA Journal (April 2006, pp. 32-40). It was also included in the New \nLondon Architecture Exhibition in 2005. The project originated when it won Circle 33's 'Accommodating Change: Innovation in \nHousing' competition in 2002, and subsequently it received a Housing Design Award (2004; shortlisted again in 2006). The \nDonnybrook Quarter was highly commended in the Royal Academy Summer Show Architecture Awards (2004), received an \nAmerican Institute of Architects (UK/London Chapter) Design Excellence Award (2006), and won a RIBA Regional Design \nAward (2006). The scheme was included on the long-list for the 2006 Stirling Prize, and only just narrowly missed the final cut.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.230 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".