Review: <i>How Architects, Experts, Politicians, International Agencies, and Citizens Negotiate Modern Planning: Casablanca Chandigarh</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How Architects, Experts, Politicians, International Agencies, and Citizens Negotiate Modern Planning: Casablanca Chandigarh Centre Canadien d’Architecture/Canadian Centre for Architecture Montreal, Quebec 26 November 2013–20 April 2014 \n 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. \n 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)
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".