Bibliographic record
Abstract
De/Framed Gardens 2011 World Horticultural Expo, Xi’an, China Karl Kullmann 2011. Topos 76: 106 Following the Shanghai World Expo and the Beijing Olympics, the Xi’an World Horticultural Expo continued the recurring theme of using major events to influence the fortunes of cities. While many garden installations drew on kitsch representation of other provinces and countries, two collections expanded the ambition of garden exhibit design – the “Masters” of landscape architecture and the “Creative Nature” project by invited universities. The Masters’ Gardens showcased designs from nine internationally celebrated studios: West 8, EMBT, Mosbach Paysagistes, Gross.Max, Topotek 1, SLA, Martha Schwartz, DYJG, and Terragram (pictured). The level plots framed with bamboo reinforced the idea of the walled garden as an ‘other-world’ decisively withdrawn from the surrounding landscape. Accordingly, the Master’s gardens tended to employ thematics associated with the labyrinth and the grotto; of hiding and revealing, voyeurism and exotica. Conceived under the title “Creative Nature” by the University of Southern California, the other collection of gardens exhibit the design work of eight design schools: Berkeley, Columbia, University of Toronto, Architectural Association, Peking University, Hong Kong University, and Universidad Torcuato de Tella. As the University Gardens occupied lake-edge and up-slope positions, Photograph by Karl Kullmann
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.122 | 0.033 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".