Albert street block: a process for designing in-between spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This practicum explores In-Between spaces within the urban environment and a process of design that can create a more responsive and resilient urban environment capable of evolving to accommodate for changing needs and requirements of the future. The research of In-Between spaces was completed within Winnipeg’s Exchange District to gain an understanding of the character, spatial characteristics, and formal order of In-Between spaces there. The knowledge acquired from this research was utilized to develop an awareness of the specific spatial and functional conditions, which provided the basis for building a typology of In-Between spaces. A critical analysis of Integral Urbanism, by Nan Ellin, and A New Theory of Urban Design, By Christopher Alexander, was conducted to assist in the understanding of the potential character of In-Between spaces and the process that informed the final design. The principles and concepts brought forth by Ellin and Alexander, were utilized throughout the design process of the Albert Street Block in order to guide the process and provide a basis of analysis of each individual design intervention. The result of this research and analysis was a design for the Albert Street Block that created a positive and desirable urban space, strengthening the resiliency of the site for years to come.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".