Italian style skyscrapers. High-rise construction in the fifties and sixties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEn los anos cincuenta y sesenta del siglo XX, mientras la ingenieria italiana recibia importantes premios internacionales, el diseno de los edificios en altura atraia la atencion de los mejores arquitectos. Estos entendieron inmediatamente lo mucho que el empleo estrategico de la estructura habria podido revolucionar la ya de por si estereotipada imagen de la torre de acero y vidrio propuesta por el Estilo Internacional, y lo convirtieron en un campo de experimentacion. De esta forma Gio Ponti, Luigi Moretti y la BBPR desarrollaron extraordinarias colaboraciones con Pier Luigi Nervi y Arturo Danusso, los ingenieros mas activos en el campo del diseno de rascacielos. De entre los proyectos realizados en esos anos, este proceso de colaboracion dio como resultado a al menos tres obras maestras: la torre Velasca, el rascacielos Pirelli y la torre de la Bolsa de Valores de Montreal. Esta ultima, en el momento de su finalizacion, ademas significo el record del edificio de hormigon armado mas alto del mundo. EnglishIn the fifties and sixties, while Italian engineering was receiving important international awards, the theme of the tall building attracted the attention of the best architects. They made it a field of design experimentation, immediately sensing how the strategic use of the structure could revolutionize the already stereotyped image of the all-steel and glass towers proposed by the International Style. Gio Ponti, Luigi Moretti and the BBPR thus created formidable partnerships with Pier Luigi Nervi and Arturo Danusso, the most active engineers in the field of skyscraper design. The result was at least three masterpieces, among the works created in those years: the Velasca tower and the Pirelli skyscraper in Milan and the Stock Exchange tower in Montreal, which, at the time of its completion, also marked the record for the highest reinforced concrete building in the world.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.007 |
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".