Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its various professional manifestations between 1946 and 1968, New Zealand's Group Architects sought to create an indigenous architecture: of New Zealand, suited to the needs of its people, and under a banner that “overseas solutions will not do.” Despite this pronouncement, from the 1950s commentators have cited Japanese, Scandinavian and American influence on the Group's output. In the late 1970s one of the early Group members, Allan Wild, belatedly acknowledged the impact of the Californian architect, Gordon Drake, and two decades later he extended his list to include leading world architects of the twentieth century and others from Scandinavia and California. These influences have recently been discussed, notably in the extensive study of the Group where Julia Gatley, Bill McKay and Andrew Barrie, in particular, have challenged a once taken-for-granted argument for a truly local architecture. This paper continues this investigation, focussing in particular on claims for an indigenous New Zealand built form by the Group in the early 1950s, reflecting upon the impact of post-war developments in California, and asking why the Group persisted in failing to acknowledge their debt to the worldwide network of regionally inflected modernist development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".