Imageability and Form in the Grande Bibliothèque du Québec: The Baroque as a More-Than-Representational Technique toward the Paradoxical Particularity of Experience in Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of an inattention to architectural form in building events, architectural geography has yet to fully explore the subjective aspects of the spatial politics of affect. And because of an analytical focus on the programming of affect, it has undertheorized affective styles which may unsettle the performativity of space. Architectural theorists call such spaces ambiguous or contradictory. They variously insist that baroque space is crucial to redressing individualism and capitalism insofar as it encourages relationality, democracy, and resubjectification. I take a more circumscribed approach to the more-than-representational and show that formal spatial ambiguity produces delight and provokes a paradoxical sort of looking, feeling(s), and thinking (ie, the particularity of experience). My argument is based on observant participation and interviews on the affective consistencies (here, in-betweenness) of perception, speed, and ascension in the Grand Bibliothèque du Québec. As for the political merits of the baroque, inasmuch as its tensions strike a contrast with the rhythm of the performativity of space, it must be considered a complement to more expressly representational attempts to wrest loose from the disciplinary doing of the world.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".