MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197682462 · doi:10.1080/10464883.2021.1947676

Projections for the Urban Night: A Film-based Exploration in the Design Studio

2021· article· en· W3197682462 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Architectural Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNight-time city culture
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesign studioStudioFilmmakingSociologyVisual artsArgument (complex analysis)Spatial designAestheticsArchitectural engineeringEngineeringMovie theaterArtEngineering design process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Film inspires the spatial and societal imaginations of architects and urban designers, and thus, design teachers have long been experimenting with films, filmic techniques, and filmmaking in the studio. Building on the course design and student output of an undergraduate architectural design studio entitled Projections for the Urban Night, this essay aims to demonstrate how film can be utilized as a pedagogical tool to examine the built environment and for imagining possible futures. The studio drew upon cinematic techniques of collage, storyboarding, physical model animation, and film essays for the development of individual proposals. Based on a discussion of student projects, the essay makes an argument for film to serve as more than representation, highlighting its potential as instigator for what to design.The essay begins with a review and analysis of past experiments, examining how architects, urban designers, and design teachers have invoked film in relation to design. Contemporary pedagogic experiments using film tend to display an enchantment with the application of technology and digital media at the expense of critical reflections on the ideological frameworks that undergird the designs. The essay then moves on to the discussion of the specific studio in which the focus on the technological aspect was circumvented by asking students to develop scenarios for the near-future commoning of the urban night—drawing on the interdisciplinary research area of “Night Studies.” This discussion is supported by references to students’ explorations and the essay argues that the thematic intervention, asking students to design for the night, to develop programs that take into consideration social and physical activity after dark, opened up new possibilities to critique hegemonic practices.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it