Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 1929, 321 architectes participaient au concours organisé pour la conception d’un aéroport parrainé par la Lehigh Portland Cement Company d’Allentown en Pennsylvanie. Le Centre Canadien d’Architecture possède aujourd’hui deux grands rendus et 24 dessins préparatoires que l’architecte Lloyd Wright (1890-1978) a présentés à ce concours. L’analyse des rendus et des dessins préparatoires nous aide à mieux comprendre la nature du programme du concours. On peut retracer ainsi les différentes étapes qui ont été poursuivies par Lloyd Wright pendant la formulation de son envoi. Il considérait l’aéroport comme un centre nerveux autour duquel s’articulait un système de transport intermodal. Ses croquis indiquent qu’il imaginait un réseau efficace et logique dont l’enchevêtrement complexe rendait possible la circulation sans heurt d’avions, de piétons, d’automobiles et de bateaux. Les travaux de Lloyd Wright et le programme du concours nous renseignent également sur les facteurs qui exerçaient une influence sur la conception d’ensembles architecturaux qui étaient nouveaux à l’époque.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.008 |
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".