The Berkeley Prize -- The Berkeley Prize: Those Who Make it Work [Forum]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forum Benjamin Clavan and Raymond Lifchez The Berkeley Prize: Those Who Make it Work These Forum pages were produced under agreement between the Design History Foundation and the Berkeley Prize for Undergraduate Design Excellence. For the archives of the prize, more information on past prize winners, essays on the social art of architecture, and fuller biographies of all of the reviewers and past jurors, see www.berkeleyprize. org. Also see Places 17.1 (Spring 2005), “Competing to Learn: The Berkeley Prize and the Social Art of Architecture,” for a history of the prize and a description of the 2004 awards cycle. Benjamin Clavan, Ph.D. is an architect who has been in private practice in the Los Angeles area for 25 years. Raymond Lifchez is a Professor of Architecture at U.C. Berkeley and co-founder of the Berkeley Prize. Now in its ninth year, the interna- tional Berkeley Prize for Undergrad- uate Design Excellence promotes and explores the social art of architecture. Open to undergraduate architecture majors (or teams of students in allied studies led by architecture students), the prize annually consists of two parts: a highly structured essay com- petition based on a given question, and a more open-ended competition for a travel fellowship for semifinal- ists in the essay competition. In 2006 the Berkeley Prize focused on the topic of Children and the City. A total of 111 entries repre- sented 127 students from 28 coun- tries and 38 schools of architecture. The essay prize winner was Ms. Qurratulain Poonawala, Indus Valley School of Art and Architecture, Karachi, Pakistan. The travel fellow- ship was won by Mr. Andrew Amara, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. This year’s travel fellowship included airfare and a three-week stipend to attend and participate in the third United Nations Habitat World Urban Forum in Vancouver, British Columbia. While there, the winner also participated in two major prearranged activities: the GUiC+10 event/workshop, sponsored by the Growing Up In Cities Program, to which the 2006 Berkeley Prize is ded- icated; and the 2006 Global Studio and Global Studio Design Work- shop, an international colloquium concerning specific sites and projects in Vancouver. The full text of the winning essays and more information on the travel fellowship are available at www. berkeleyprize.org One of the greatest rewards of the Berkeley Prize is participating in the community of thinkers and scholars who contribute time and effort to judging its finalists. This gathering of reviewers has set the tone and helped determine the high level of response—and high level of accomplishment—the prize has so far generated. Each year every first-stage 500-word proposal and second-stage 2,500-word essay are read online in their entirety by at least three review- ers. The decision of the reviewers is automatically tabulated and final. An international jury of experts in the specific question then finally decides the prize winners. The reviewers are a varied group, ranging from academics in the field of architecture, to lawyers, filmmakers, past student winners, and the authors of this Forum. In an effort to recog- nize their contribution and highlight some of the ways they are contribut- ing to a deeper understanding of the social art of architecture, we publish a list of them here, with short notes on their backgrounds. We also highlight the work of several to show the range and breadth of the reviewers' teach- ing and thinking, and the vision they bring to the understanding of archi- tecture as a social art. Places 18.2
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".