MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330403590 · doi:10.4995/lc2015.2015.712

From Impact to Legacy: Interpreting Critical Writing on Le Corbusier from the 1920s to the Present

2015· article· en· W2330403590 on OpenAlexaff
Graham Livesey, Antony Moulis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture, Modernity, and Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernism (music)ArchitectureHistoriographyMeaning (existential)Subject (documents)CriticismHistory of architectureTRACE (psycholinguistics)Work (physics)Art historyHistoryArtSociologyAestheticsVisual artsLiteraturePhilosophyComputer scienceEpistemologyEngineeringArchaeologyLibrary scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: As a major figure of international modernism, Le Corbusier’s work has been subject to extensive critique and review both during his lifetime and since, to the extent that he has become the world’s most studied 20th century architect. While numerous attempts have been made to assess Le Corbusier’s works and ideas in their meaning and influence, little attention has been given to understanding the phenomena of critical writing and research that continues to surround the architect. Drawing upon research by the authors in preparing a 4-volume anthology of writings on Le Corbusier’s work for a major British publisher in 2016, the paper will trace critical reaction to the architect’s practice through a survey investigation of research and writing produced mainly in English from the 1920s to the present. The paper will give a chronological account of the issues, ideas and approaches that have emerged in critical writings on Le Corbusier and his architecture, reporting on the historiographic questions that have presented themselves in undertaking such a large-scale survey work. Reviewing the work of well-known critics the survey has also sought out lesser-known voices whose presence reflects Le Corbusier’s impact around the world, providing new interpretations through fresh perspectives on his work. Keywords: Architectural criticism; Architectural historiography; 20th century architecture, Le Corbusier. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/LC2015.2015.712

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0170.035
Scholarly communication0.0150.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchitecture, Modernity, and DesignFrench-language works237,207