Smart Address: Art Deco, Style Moderne and Their Contemporaries in Toronto. THE MARKET GALLERY AND THE TORONTO ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVANCY, TORONTO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A city's architecture is an important record of its history and cultural heritage, a record that Toronto has the unfortunate reputation of failing to preserve. 1 This lack of respect for Toronto's architectural past was an underlying friction in the exhibition Smart Address: Art Deco, Style Moderne and Their Contemporaries in Toronto.Mounted at the Market Gallery in partnership with the Toronto Architectural Conservancy (TAC), Smart Address used archival records to explore important Art Deco and Style Moderne buildings from the years between the First and Second World Wars.The Market Gallery, which presents exhibitions highlighting the city's history and culture, is situated on the second floor of the St. Lawrence Market, a historic building in its own right, being the site of Toronto's original City Hall.At the start of the exhibition a didactic panel explained the rationale for its expansive scope, according to Alec Keefer, past president of TAC and guest curator.The choice of content was guided not only by the time period and architectural style, but also by the buildings' inclusion in Journal, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, Construction, and Engineering and Contract Review, periodicals from which many images and captions were drawn.The exhibition also featured the work of four noteworthy architects of the era: H.H. Kent, J.J. Woolnough, L. Baldwin, and G. Greene, and highlighted new building materials and influential technological advances of the period.The exhibition comprised over 130 framed photographs, several copies of architectural drawings, and a few primary source materials, including archi-1 For example, journalist and architecture critic Christopher Hume recently expressed the concern that Toronto values new development over preserving architectural treasures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.004 |
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".