The end of drawing: narrative visualization and community-based collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
That conventional design practice cannot substantively address many aspects of spatial production is beyond the concern of many architects and landscape architects, who would argue that the limits of their practice do not extend beyond the formal boundaries of buildings and grounds.It is at least arguable that growing anxiety about these limits led to the emergence of landscape urbanism, some practitioners of which employ a diverse array of graphic techniques not in the service of design, but instead to identify, analyze and describe problems and phenomena related to but beyond the selfimposed limits of building and ground.Landscape urbanism's open-ended objectives expand the field of potential research subjects and the potential for community-based engagement.At least initially, many communities may require the skills, if not the standard products, of an architect --skill sets learned during a design education --one set rooted in graphic description and analysis (documentation), the other, in the graphic description of synthesized interrelationships (design).Two landscape urbanists using contrasting techniques, Fernando Romero (geographer) and Jane Wolff (storyteller), provide a useful reference point.An open focus on the use of graphic skills is of benefit when working with aboriginal communities on British Columbia's coast.In that context, selecting which skills to use and how is dependent on issues that emerge from inside a collaboration rather than superimposed from outside, resulting in education, history, and legal evidence projects that are largely dependent on visual communication.These apparently simple acts of drawing have helped build trust between an academic and aboriginal community, and led to the development of other collaborative projects across environmental and social science disciplines.A wide-angle, open focus design practice of drawing research might be appealing to those unconvinced that building and ground are the practical limits of our disciplines.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".