‘The unacceptability of the erasures’: John Hejduk’s texts for the ‘Berlin Masque’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engaging Hejduk’s compelling project, ‘Berlin Masque’ (1981), this paper looks into writing’s power to develop unforeseen possibilities of architectural program. In his ‘Berlin Masque’ proposal, unlike his earlier ‘Masques’, Hejduk clearly prioritizes his prose – not his small accompanying sketches – as the place where the architectural proposition is primarily portrayed. Unpacking these texts in detail will indicate how language represents spatial elements and allow one to imagine moments of spatial appropriation, thus creating original architectural images of cultural significance. Furthermore, the paper demonstrates how Hejduk’s texts and new programmatic possibilities aspire to reconcile Berlin with the trauma of the Second World War. His proposal intends to remind the city’s inhabitants that history is not something that is limited to the past, but a development that involves new, everyday happenings and their interaction with memory. Expanding on the rituals of inhabitation for each suggested structure, as narrated in the texts, the paper outlines how the new stories proposed by the architect acknowledge the city’s existing narratives while creating the necessary space for new ones to appear. The conclusion extracts the significance and uniqueness of the ‘Berlin Masque’ as an architectural project, as well as the significance of language for Hejduk as an architect. It discusses briefly the noted interest in ar
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".