De la cybernétique à l’architecture numérique : retour sur un demi-siècle de théories, pratiques et projets expérimentaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Little is said about the influence of cybernetics on the architectural practices and theories of the past fifty years. Yet, from the discourses of the experimental architecture of the 1960s and 1970s, to those of the most advanced advocates of digital design, the terms and key themes of cybernetics keep coming back. Analysis Focusing on the first attempts to apply cybernetics to architecture, then to the themes of the network, cyborg and cyberspace, and finally to the biological turn of the architecture of the 2000s, this article shows the prevalence of notions of the interactivity, adaptability, reflexivity, sensitivity and intelligence of architecture and the city in architects’ discourses. Conclusion and Implications Architects have never stopped working on these cybernetics notions. Moreover, the latter are culminating today in the theme of the smart city.
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 | 0.029 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".