Bibliographic record
Abstract
From traditional hand-drawings to contemporary CAD visualisation, Alberti's Window has persisted as a fundamental instrument of architectural representation for over half a millennium. Writing from a phenomenological standpoint, architect and scholar Juhani Pallasmaa has criticised Alberti's Window for perpetuating a visually-biased design culture that marginalises the importance of other sensory modalities to spatio-temporal experience: this is the phenomenological dilemma of Alberti's Window . He has gone so far as to call for its rejection altogether. This paper seeks to establish a discursive foundation to address Pallasmaa's justifiable concerns. Adopted in its current form from Alberti's treatise on the art of painting in perspective De Pictura in 1435, the method was distilled mathematically by Cambridge scholar Brook Taylor in the early eighteenth century. Read in a phenomenological context, aspects of Brook Taylor's scholarship present a critical foundation from which to extrapolate the instrument's more complete conceptual potency within an architectural context.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".