MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110537814

Canadian Centre For Architecture (CCA): An Account Of Its Foundation Process, Building And Facilities

2004· article· W7110537814 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenMETU (Middle East Technical University) · 2004
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture, Modernity, and Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionArchitecturePrincipal (computer security)History of architectureThematic mapFoundation (evidence)Task (project management)Space (punctuation)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article surveys the foundation process, architecture and facilities of the Canadian Centre for Architecture in Montréal, Canada. CCA’s principal task was to create a channel of knowledge between recorded visual culture and written discourse of past architecture, i.e. architectural memory, and architectural practice in the contemporary world. The traditional concept of museum as a repository of objects was considered nonpertinent to the Centre that was from the beginning conceived as a ‘house of comprehension’. CCA’s acquisition policy necessitated related purchases that aimed at the creation of sections in the collection from which an overall view about a period, trend, group and architect can be obtained through interdisciplinary research. Hence, CCA’s temporary thematic exhibitions and their accompanying publications focus on specific issues that stem from premediated accumulations of collection material. The building and gardens of CCA transmit the mission and message of the Centre as a storehouse of architectural knowledge. Peter Rose’s design for the building superbly fits to the traditional urban environment of the Shaugnessy Village. The building embraces the historical Shaugnessy House and also rephrases its basic formal characteristics in the language of modern architecture. The façades of the nineteenth century row houses and institutional buildings in the encircling district were another source of inspiration. At the end, the instruments of modern technology and architectural space standarts prescribed by a modern museum building became properly embedded in a historically meaningful milieu. With its two wings on the east and west and itself placed as a backdrop, the CCA building displays the Shaugnessy House to the city as an architectural model, an exhibition object deprived of its original function. This idea of ‘architectural’ presentation is relevant to the primary function of the Centre as a museum for architecture. This duality occupied the designers, Peter Rose and Phyllis Lambert, from the beginning of their project. They looked for an appropriate solution to the dichotomy of past and present, which faced them while designing a modern building to be inserted in the old Shaugnessy Village. The attempt to reconcile is also discernible in artistarchitect Melvin Charney’s sculpture garden fronting the Shaugnessy House. Charney reconstructed the Shaugnessy House in the form of an arcade and the columns behind the arcade represent the core-themes of world architecture embraced by CCA. The garden formulates the message of the Centre as a museum of architecture implanted in a historical urban milieu within the limits of a modern city. The garden is an interpretation of contrasting architectural realities inherent in the city of Montréal.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it