The Berkeley Prize -- The Berkeley Prize: Those Who Make it Work [Forum]
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Forum Benjamin Clavan and Raymond Lifchez The Berkeley Prize: Those Who Make it Work These Forum pages were produced under agreement between the Design History Foundation and the Berkeley Prize for Undergraduate Design Excellence. For the archives of the prize, more information on past prize winners, essays on the social art of architecture, and fuller biographies of all of the reviewers and past jurors, see www.berkeleyprize. org. Also see Places 17.1 (Spring 2005), “Competing to Learn: The Berkeley Prize and the Social Art of Architecture,” for a history of the prize and a description of the 2004 awards cycle. Benjamin Clavan, Ph.D. is an architect who has been in private practice in the Los Angeles area for 25 years. Raymond Lifchez is a Professor of Architecture at U.C. Berkeley and co-founder of the Berkeley Prize. Now in its ninth year, the interna- tional Berkeley Prize for Undergrad- uate Design Excellence promotes and explores the social art of architecture. Open to undergraduate architecture majors (or teams of students in allied studies led by architecture students), the prize annually consists of two parts: a highly structured essay com- petition based on a given question, and a more open-ended competition for a travel fellowship for semifinal- ists in the essay competition. In 2006 the Berkeley Prize focused on the topic of Children and the City. A total of 111 entries repre- sented 127 students from 28 coun- tries and 38 schools of architecture. The essay prize winner was Ms. Qurratulain Poonawala, Indus Valley School of Art and Architecture, Karachi, Pakistan. The travel fellow- ship was won by Mr. Andrew Amara, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. This year’s travel fellowship included airfare and a three-week stipend to attend and participate in the third United Nations Habitat World Urban Forum in Vancouver, British Columbia. While there, the winner also participated in two major prearranged activities: the GUiC+10 event/workshop, sponsored by the Growing Up In Cities Program, to which the 2006 Berkeley Prize is ded- icated; and the 2006 Global Studio and Global Studio Design Work- shop, an international colloquium concerning specific sites and projects in Vancouver. The full text of the winning essays and more information on the travel fellowship are available at www. berkeleyprize.org One of the greatest rewards of the Berkeley Prize is participating in the community of thinkers and scholars who contribute time and effort to judging its finalists. This gathering of reviewers has set the tone and helped determine the high level of response—and high level of accomplishment—the prize has so far generated. Each year every first-stage 500-word proposal and second-stage 2,500-word essay are read online in their entirety by at least three review- ers. The decision of the reviewers is automatically tabulated and final. An international jury of experts in the specific question then finally decides the prize winners. The reviewers are a varied group, ranging from academics in the field of architecture, to lawyers, filmmakers, past student winners, and the authors of this Forum. In an effort to recog- nize their contribution and highlight some of the ways they are contribut- ing to a deeper understanding of the social art of architecture, we publish a list of them here, with short notes on their backgrounds. We also highlight the work of several to show the range and breadth of the reviewers' teach- ing and thinking, and the vision they bring to the understanding of archi- tecture as a social art. Places 18.2
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».