Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assembling for the first time a braced, timber frame as a freestanding structure, where no piece could be taken away without collapsing it, was surely a ‘eureka’ moment in architecture. The expressive potential of the timber frame can be argued to have led both to its development as well as to its later transfer and transformation. It is the intention of this paper to present the braced frame of the medieval stave-church as the opportunity for expressing Christian ‘church-like’ qualities in pagan Norway – a part transformation in timber-rich Norway from the established practise of constructing stone churches in the south. Six centuries later ecclesiologists sought medieval examples for the construction of wooden churches in colonial diocese - such as those in Canada and New Zealand where timber was plentiful. Several mid-C19th publications, such as The Reverend William Scott’s paper “On Wooden Churches”, raised awareness among ecclesiologists of the potential of medieval Scandinavian examples to contribute to the transformation of the wooden church in the colonies by transferring ‘church-like’ qualities to the utilitarian ‘god box’. The C19th wooden churches by R.G. Suter in Queensland are innovative examples of an ecclesiastical architecture in timber that takes advantage of the expressive potential of exposing the frame and the use of ‘outside studding’. There are direct transfers of these earlier techniques and technologies through the use of ‘outside studding’ and the exposed timber frame in the work of Andresen O’Gorman Architects. In this contemporary architectural practice techniques and technologies are transferred as much for the frame’s expressive potential as for the pragmatic use of a renewable resource. Mooloomba House will be used as an example to identify conceptual ideas expressed through the timber frame rather than an explanation of the architectural project as a whole.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".