Sustainability in architectural design projects – a semiotic understanding
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
The potential of semiotics to theorize and analyze the field of sustainable architecture is still largely unexplored. This paper uses a triadic structure for defining sustainable design signs and distinguishes two separate modes of sustainable design reasoning: namely deductive and abductive sustainable design reasoning. This theoretical framework is used to analyze two architectural projects submitted for an international design competition in Montreal, Canada. The architectural texts, considered in this paper the representamen of the signs, prove to be indicative of the mode of reasoning deployed. The analysis also reveals that the mode of reasoning used dictates the types of signs produced, the role designed-objects have in the signs, as well as the functional possibilities design elements perform in the project. The paper proposes that deductive sustainable design reasoning brings to a halt the process of semiosis – presenting a status-quo approach – and that abductive sustainable design reasoning allows semiosis ad infinitum – presenting a future driven outlook. Additionally, a gap appeared between the open form of critical judgement proposed for competitions and the conceptual fixation inherit in deductive sustainable design reasoning. This paper presents a theoretical contribution that provides new possibilities for researchers to model and analyze sustainability in design projects.
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 | 0.001 | 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