Building consensus: Design media and multimodality in architecture education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores multimodal communication and social interaction in university-level architecture education. Drawing on ethnography of North American programs of ‘design-build’ architecture, we consider how the judgment of a ‘good’ (or ‘bad’) design is as much a result of how it is communicated as what is communicated. In settings like the design ‘review’, students endeavor to persuade an audience of the merits of their proposed design. This is ideally accomplished through the ‘convergence’ of multiple design media on the same ‘idea’ or design gestalt. ‘Convergence’ involves not just technical competency; it is also a social achievement: an effect of composing and coordinating multimodal semiotic media according to shared representational and communicative conventions. Failure to recognize convergence is often an effect of intersemiotic dissonance. This is also the risk of a design’s failure in the eyes of the faculty jury, who often direct their critiques toward communicative inconsistencies.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it