L’architettura americana cerca una identità : 1932-1948
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The thesis analyses the debate on the architecture of the European Modern Movement that took place in the United States during the period between the two world wars. With regard to this debate, which not only involved those operating in the architectural sector, but that ended up involving vast sectors of American society and the organization of architectural schools, the extreme characteristic features that lead back to a dialectic of modernity are emphasized gathering around the polarities represented by regionalism and universalism.\n\t\t\t\t The aim was to analyse the social, cultural, and artistic context where an idea of architecture was being defined that, at the same time, was "modern" and "American", during the period between the Great Depression, which reached its peak in 1932, and the beginning of the Cold War, with the post-war reconstruction and the Marshall Plan of 1948.\n\t\t\t\t The starting and ending dates of the period under study were precisely established in correspondence of two events organized by the MoMA in New York, since these two events were believed to mark two moments of crucial reflection in modern architecture.\n\t\t\t\t In the sixteen years between the two events organized by the MoMA, American architecture demonstrated a progressive emancipation, as much from the cultural domination imposed by few isolated "pioneers", almost all European, as from the mythology of an American technological "exceptionalism" symbolized, in architecture, by the skyscraper and, therefore, the outlets of a process that was taking root and spreading were questioned: architecture no longer appeared indifferent to place and time but, on the contrary, it needed to be attentive to a topographical, climatic and cultural context. lt was no longer the legacy of a functional and rigidly sachlich culture of the early twenties, but it was the product of a personal and creative approach towards design. After all, during the period that separates the two dates, social, political and economic events occurred that would have extraordinary repercussions on architecture, as well.
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) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
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 ».