Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article situates contemporary landscape architecture in the United States and Canada as part of a long, rich tradition of landscape- making found throughout the Americas. This perspective calls for a wider scope and conceptual framework for renewed, vigorous, and sustained engagement with indigenous and Latin American landscapes. In this article, I pursue this by blending hemispheric studies with landscape architecture to study historical and contemporary sites, projects, practices, and theories of Latin American landscape within a broader hemispheric context. The piece begins by introducing the field of hemispheric studies and assembling methods suited to the undertaking. The second section addresses the question of origins and shows that pluralism and syncretism are critical to understanding American landscapes. I then draw from existing literature and my own fieldwork to survey contemporary conditions and develop four concepts for the study of American landscapes, before finishing with conclusions intended to serve as guideposts for future work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it