Review: Digital Architecture beyond Computers: Fragments of a Cultural History of Computational Design, by Roberto Bottazzi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| December 01 2019 Review: Digital Architecture beyond Computers: Fragments of a Cultural History of Computational Design, by Roberto Bottazzi Roberto BottazziDigital Architecture beyond Computers: Fragments of a Cultural History of Computational DesignLondon: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2018, 256 pp., 21 b/w illus. $88 (cloth), ISBN 9781474258135 Theodora Vardouli Theodora Vardouli McGill University Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (2019) 78 (4): 496–498. https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2019.78.4.496b Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Theodora Vardouli; Review: Digital Architecture beyond Computers: Fragments of a Cultural History of Computational Design, by Roberto Bottazzi. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 1 December 2019; 78 (4): 496–498. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2019.78.4.496b Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentJournal of the Society of Architectural Historians Search In his afterword to Roberto Bottazzi's new contribution to a growing body of scholarship on the histories and genealogies of digital practices in architecture, Frédéric Migayrou identifies a historiographic conundrum. “How to elaborate the limits of a critical history of digital architecture,” Migayrou asks, “where the limits have not yet been established or well defined?” (207).1 In other words, how does one simultaneously construct and critique a field? One possible response to Migayrou's challenge is offered by the Canadian Centre for Architecture's Archaeology of the Digital research project (begun in 2013). In what the CCA calls “a Tristram Shandy of the digital,” the absence of limits and definitions encourages proliferation and digression, which are to be embraced as positive qualities rather than domesticated through taxonomic delimitation.2 In Digital Architecture beyond Computers, Bottazzi offers a different response. While scholarship on digital architecture has so far focused largely on... 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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.011 |
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".