Communiquer l'architecture par le média exposition (with an abstract in English)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Communicating Architecture Through the Medium of the Exhibition] When analysed as a form of media, exhibitions need to be considered from three different perspectives : that of the person producing the message (curator), that of the person receiving it (visitor) and that of the exhibitionary apparatus itself (through the various mise-en-scene strategies employed). This article examines two different ways of thinking about the communication of architecture in the exhibitionary setting. In the first example, which is also the more traditional, the use of the term architecture generally refers to the building, and the curator endeavours to communicate through the medium of the exhibition both the material and experiential aspects of the building. Over the past two decades, a different approach has been employed within the exhibition venue: that of conceptualising architecture not only as a building, but also as a project. This newer approach takes into account aspects such as the generative idea, the creative process, and the many different forms of representation of the building under investigation. Exhibitions focusing on the ideas and creative processes underlying architecture have become common in recent curatorship, with the effect that architecture is increasingly presented in exhibitionary settings as a practice rather than as a historical or theoretical field. The author concludes by explaining that, from the perspective of communication theory, both forms of architectural exhibition neglect their audiences, and consequently the full potential of the exhibition as a form of media is seldom reached.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".