Transparency and Context: the Design Process of Hans Verplancke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When designing his or her own house the architect enjoys a unique type of freedom because there is no previous 'protocol' agreed between architect and client. The paper discusses the design process of the Flemish architect Hans Verplancke regarding the two houses he designed for himself and his family. The different contexts of the two houses stimulated a rather diverse methodological approach to the creative process. For the first house (a reconversion project), his experience as a painter provided an important input, whereas for the second one (a project from scratch) it was rather its conception as a sculptured mass which was paramount. The different moments and specificities of the design process are intertwined with a conception of dwelling space as a multilayered vital reference for its inhabitants. The differences between the two projects recall Colin Rowe's and Robert Slutzky's interpretation of different forms of transparency. The first project is closer to the definition of 'literal transparency' providing clearness in the definition of spaces and a visibility without interruptions between exterior and interior. The second one performs the definition of 'phenomenal transparency', creating ambiguity around the perceptive experience of outside and inside and involving the inhabitant as an active partner of the sensorial metamorphosis. The article concludes that the context provided in both cases a decisive impetus to unfold the design process in a way that resulted in quite important differences between the two works.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".