MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2372547972

A Book Review on Studies on Tectonic Culture

2011· review· en· W2372547972 on OpenAlexaff
Tian Danni

Bibliographic record

VenueTime Architecture · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPrevention of Organ Failure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTectonicsEpistemologySociologyGeologyPhilosophyPaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article gives a critical review of Kenneth Frampton's Studies on Tectonic Culture.It is the conceptual framework which Frampton installs between his introduction and case studies that deploys the tectonic as an intellectual methodology, meanwhile neglects the manifold interactions of institutions,theories,practices,and influences that constitute that culture.The book introduces an array of interdisciplinary concepts without articulating the boundaries,the various forms of collaboration beyond individual efforts,as well as the many dissociations that mark our building practice,all are within the tectonic culture of whose existence Frampton assumes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.009

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime ArchitectureSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207