Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is an architectural study that focuses on an anxious and exciting period for medicine and architecture between 1960 and 1975. This time was an important moment of adjustment and adaptation for medicine, architecture and community. Collateral to the establishment of national health insurance (Medicare, 1966), architects and hospital planners sought to use the space of the hospital to foster this new relationship with their constituency. This happened in multiple and surprising ways, from the introduction of public spaces in hospitals, to a medical exhibit at Expo 67 that was as much an amusement ride as it was a didactic space, to a significant reorganization of the socio-spatial hierarchy of the hospital - all of which foreshadowed the influential atrium hospital of the 1980s and its shopping mall-like setting. The primary focus of this thesis is a building that Reyner Banham touted as the "ultimate medical megastructure" (1976), the McMaster Health Sciences Centre (1972) designed by the Toronto firm of Craig, Zeidler and Strong Architects. At the core of this study is the belief that hospital architecture is influenced by medical ambitions, but also architectural discourse and social dynamics. Based on this understanding, the analysis examines how the social ambitions of the Megastructuralist polemic interacted with the powerful urge to assimilate biological research activities with the clinical setting. Archival resources, interviews and a broad range of architectural precedents are presented and analyzed to understand the medical and architectural trends that contributed to McMaster Health Sciences Centre's innovative and influential design. In this thesis, megastructuralist experimental, utopian projects and, importantly, the broader debate over the future of the postwar city is brought to bear on biomedical ambitions and the architecture of the hospital.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".