Bibliographic record
Abstract
The kid architecture program was developed thirty years ago to introduce young people to the design of the built environment. The one-week camps structured for three different learning levels, grades 4th–6th, middle school and high school have been conducted in various locations internationally to include the Smithsonian, The National Building Museum Washington D.C., Canada and China. The camps have received national and regional awards for the broad breath of hands-on activities and implementation of technology. The ten objectives for kid architecture endeavor to develop an understanding of the following: • Why buildings look the way they do • Why building stand up • What architects and designers do? • Design drawing as a problem solving tool/method • The use of the design process as employed by architects • How a building is designed, constructed, used and reused • Construction materials used in buildings • How and why people “define” space 6 • The use of computer graphics, animation and Computer-aided design • Participation in the design of the built environment The philosophic foundations that kid architecture is built upon is the assumption that those who are exposed early to architectural design will have a different conceptual base from which to formulate more complex and differential ideas about the built environment. Architecture Camps’ personnel believe this cognitive skill is as basic to a young person in the modern world as knowing left from right or discriminating the letters “b” from “d.” Future advances in the conceptualization of buildings, cities, and personal living spaces will be made by people who are deeply aware of the built environment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".