Review: <i>Montage and the Metropolis: Architecture, Modernity, and the Representation of Space</i>, by Martino Stierli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| September 01 2019 Review: Montage and the Metropolis: Architecture, Modernity and the Representation of Space, by Martino Stierli Martino StierliMontage and the Metropolis: Architecture, Modernity, and the Representation of SpaceNew Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2018, 320 pp., 72 color and 85 b/w illus. $60 (cloth), ISBN 9780300221312 Peter Sealy Peter Sealy University of Toronto Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (2019) 78 (3): 364–367. https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2019.78.3.364 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Peter Sealy; Review: Montage and the Metropolis: Architecture, Modernity and the Representation of Space, by Martino Stierli. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 1 September 2019; 78 (3): 364–367. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2019.78.3.364 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentJournal of the Society of Architectural Historians Search Both instrumental technique and potentially radical political critique, montage occupies a crucial place within architectural culture. From August Schmarsow to Manfredo Tafuri, Le Corbusier to Colin Rowe, a wide array of architects, theorists, and historians have used montage while seeking to comprehend and reshape modern urban space. El Lissitzky's 1924–25 Wolkenbügel (Cloud Hanger) is a paradigmatic example (Figure 1). The term montage refers generally to a technique involving the synthetic spatial and temporal arrangement of image fragments, whether from still photography or moving pictures. It is difficult to pin down, however: while constructed primarily from photographic fragments, montage imbricates multiple media, as evidenced by its centrality... © 2019 by the Society of Architectural Historians. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints, or via email: jpermissions@ucpress.edu.2019 You do not currently have access to this content.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.012 |
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".