Reclaiming home: exploring spatial and social life in residential Winnipeg through the lens of Lilong - housing in Shanghai
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residential environments have a close relationship to everyday human life. They are not only significant places for human activity; they also play an important role in the physical and social contexts. Additionally, welcoming and attractive open spaces in residential neighbourhoods increase opportunities for informal interaction among residents, and create hospitable places for humans to live, build family, develop community,and interact with their natural environment. The intention of this practicum is to provide a lens through which to reconsider the definition of home, focusing on outdoor space as a crucial and key component to increasing overall satisfaction with one’s home. The study of Lilong housing in Shanghai plays a significant role in this practicum, through exploring the spatial-social relationship of Lilong housing, looking at how physical and spatial layout influence patterns of space use and movement, and examining impact on the social life (Hillier, 1987). These findings are derived from carefully investigating both the physical and community aspects of Lilong, and prove that the hierarchy of social structure is reflected and supported by a hierarchy of communal spaces (Gehl, 2011). Therefore, the most important spatial feature graduated, outdoor spaces with public, semi-public, semi-private and private areas - dominates the design decisions. The design is presented as a major means to redefine and reform outdoor spaces in residential Winnipeg, in relation to social interaction from a landscape architecture perspective.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".