College of Architecture and Planning Annual Report, 2004-2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this we believeIt is always a pleasure to submit the CAP Annual Report.It is very rewarding to look back into this last academic year and see how much it has been accomplished by our faculty, students, and staff.At the same time that many colleges in the nation have gone into hibernation mode waiting for our current global financial winter to go away, in contrast we have been operating with the enthusiasm of a new beginning.Are we crazy?I don't think so.We have great opportunities in front of us and this is an ideal time for planning the next 5 years as we approach our big 50 th anniversary in 2015.Surfing the opportunities of the future is not that different from surfing the waves of the ocean.You have to start paddling in anticipation to the arrival of incoming waves.Metaphorically, this year we have started a new strategic planning cycle that will allow us to take full advantage of incoming opportunities.The first step in a strategic planning cycle is a fundamental examination of who we are and what we believe.We hope that the pages of this report will help us all answer these fundamental questions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".