The Collingwood terminals: an adaptive reuse approach to heritage buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis offers a critique that focuses on adaptive reuse for \ncontemporary architects currently practicing in Ontario. The critique \nstates the approach of adaptive reuse is interpreted too widely, \nresulting in adaptive reuse projects dismissing the original building’s \nheritage values. This thesis posits that the architectural community \nshould reimagine the adaptive reuse approach in consideration of \nheritage buildings. This thesis provides an alternative approach to the \npractice of adaptive reuse that involves engagement with the existing \nbuilding, consisting of historical research and documentation. As well \nas a carefully considered program that connects the buildings history \nto the current economy and cultural needs. This proposed method \nis demonstrated through a study of a historic 1929 grain terminal in \nCollingwood, Ontario. The design proposal is for the adaptation into \na spa that connects the Terminal building back to its history of place \nwhile reintegrating it into the new economy of tourism and recreation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".