Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| June 01 2017 Review: Archaeology of the Digital: Complexity and Convention Archaeology of the Digital: Complexity and Convention Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal 10 May–16 October 2016 Matthew Allen Matthew Allen Harvard University Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (2017) 76 (2): 261–263. https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2017.76.2.261 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Matthew Allen; Review: Archaeology of the Digital: Complexity and Convention. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 1 June 2017; 76 (2): 261–263. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2017.76.2.261 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentJournal of the Society of Architectural Historians Search Archaeology of the Digital: Complexity and Convention was the third and final in a series of exhibitions curated by Greg Lynn, an architect based in Los Angeles, at the Canadian Centre for Architecture. The first was a blockbuster display of four projects by Lynn's mentors and heroes; the second was a more eclectic set of six projects by Lynn's buddies.1 The third exhibition resembled the second in that it presented a diverse set of projects—fifteen, spanning twenty years—by architects roughly Lynn's age.2 A perceptive curatorial move, however, shifted the third show into a different register. Rather than clustering materials by project, the exhibition spread a jumble from all fifteen projects—drawings, models, animations, renderings, and everything in between—throughout the gallery space, with little discernible order (Figure 1). Labels with architects’ names were there if one looked for them, but they were unobtrusive enough that, looking up from... You do not currently have access to this content.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.028 |
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".