Imagining intergenerational space in the public realm; seniors, children and materiality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intergenerational design is an overlooked design consideration \ntypically not included into the configuration of urban public spaces. \nThe expected increase of seniors in city and global scales demands a \nreexamination of our urban fabric and an integration of this growing \ndemographic. Through the use of materiality in architecture as a medium, \nit is hypothesized that it can trigger interactions and relationships between \ngenerations. The research builds on existing intergenerational theory, \nbut attempts to impose it into the public space context. It is through an \nintergenerational approach that designers can combat ageism and mend \ngenerational segregation; self inflicted or externally imposed. By analyzing \npublic space through the lens of material culture and heterotopias, and \nintroducing the notion of transformative space, the site moves beyond the \nstatic limitations of heterotopia. Chestnut Street in Toronto was chosen \nas a place for criticizing and bettering the existing generational social \nstructure in North American society.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".