Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on archival research on the Myron Goldsmith fund at the CCA (Canadian Centre for Architecture), the essay explores the formative experience of the American architect and engineer in Italy from 1953 to 1955. It is the first scientific survey on this topic, one which sheds light on this fundamental encounter between Goldsmith and the Italian engineering culture of the 1950s. \nWhile studying at the University of La Sapienza, he attended the lectures of Pier Luigi Nervi, participated in the competition for one of the most important facilities at the 1960 Rome Olympics (the Velodrome), travelled across Italy and Europe, and met several figures exceptionally significant for Italian engineering (Chelazzi, Gori, Musmeci, Morandi) and architectural culture of the 1950s. The archival records regarding Goldsmith’s stay in Italy represent an important document which enables understanding to what extent the American architect was actually involved in the Italian context, and the importance of the cultural exchanges and collaborations that he developed during his time in Italy. It is also useful to see what Italy represented to the international audience in those years (or the American one, at least), in terms of structural architecture. Nervi represented, together with Mies, the central figure for the expressiveness of structure, where architecture, engineering, and aesthetics work together to generate the complex practice of the art of building. This research, which was at the same time formal and theoretical, was remarked on by Goldsmith, who in a letter to Mies declared that: “Such theoretical work can be better done in Italy, indeed in Rome itself, it seems to me, than anywhere else 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".