Bibliographic record
Abstract
Casting – whether in bronze, plaster or concrete – involves an exchange between formwork and the cast material. In this temporal process, water, air, heat, pigment, chemicals seep from the mould to the material cast, affecting surface quality, curing process, material distribution and solidity. As a complex temporal site that involves moulding, pouring, setting, curing and aging processes, casting yields knowledge that can inform our practices as architects. It can help us approach architecture as an act of sculpting in time while also considering time’s power to sculpt architecture. Bringing up questions of presence and absence, fixed and fluid, index and icon, solid and void, copy and repetition, positive and negative, casting also calls forth notions of representation in more than one way. Studying the multifaceted dimensions of time’s architectural actions via casting, this chapter considers the excavation at Pompeii, works by Tarkovsky and Scarpa, copies of Michelangelo’s Tondo and the concrete used at Ontario’s Scarborough College to offer some insights into the epistemological and phenomenological dimensions of time as a productive site of architecture.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".