MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2441818091 · doi:10.1525/jsah.2014.73.3.437

Review: <i>How Architects, Experts, Politicians, International Agencies, and Citizens Negotiate Modern Planning: Casablanca Chandigarh</i>

2014· article· en· W2441818091 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erica Allen-Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Society of Architectural Historians · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Architectural Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectureIconNegotiationExhibitionCitationLibrary scienceMedia studiesArt historyHistoryVisual artsSociologyArtPolitical scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How Architects, Experts, Politicians, International Agencies, and Citizens Negotiate Modern Planning: Casablanca Chandigarh&lt;/strong&gt; Centre Canadien d’Architecture/Canadian Centre for Architecture Montreal, Quebec 26 November 2013–20 April 2014&lt;/p&gt;\n&lt;p class="p1"&gt;Two plywood partitions snaked across the back room of the Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA)’s exhibition on Casablanca and Chandigarh during the fall and winter of 2013–14. The mounted reproductions of planning grids first displayed at CIAM (Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne) IX, Aix-en-Provence (1953), exemplified an innovative approach to exhibition design by the Tokyo-based firm Atelier Bow-Wow and cocurators Tom Avermaete and Maristella Casciato. Openness to multiple modes of display—photographs, models, original drawings, film, information graphics, and facsimiles—conveyed a desire to engage with the complexities of modern planning during a period of decolonization. &lt;/p&gt;\n&lt;p class="p1"&gt;The exhibition was organized around three themes: exploring, planning, and designing the civic fabric. The projects for Casablanca, a planned development of the ancient Moroccan city’s periphery, and Chandigarh, a new capital city for the postpartition state of Punjab, India, mirrored each other along a vertical axis centered on the “Transnationalism”–themed room, with both projects converging in the back room with its undulating partitions. There, the focus was on the historical moment when their respective grids were displayed at CIAM IX, which led to intense debates and contributed to the subsequent dissolution of CIAM. This rhetorical move encouraged visitors to compare and contrast the planning techniques led by Michel Écochard (Casablanca) and Le Corbusier (Chandigarh). There, and in other sections of the exhibit, similar quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis such as survey, sketching, and photographs were displayed for both projects. Despite these efforts at clear comparability, the question of how similar or different these two developments were remains an open one. The gallery texts and archival material suggested less easily quantifiable tendencies toward sociology (at Casablanca) and poetics (at Chandigarh)&lt;/p&gt;

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Society of Architectural HistoriansSame topicHistorical and Architectural StudiesFrench-language works237,207