Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can phenomenological architecture be simply described as: Phenomenological Architecture = Phenomenology + Architecture? In the simplest terms, phenomenology is the interpretive study of human experience. Any object, event, situation or experience that a person can see, hear, tough, smell, taste, feel, intuit, know, understand, or live through is a legitimate subject or phenomenological investigation. Architecture is not only the physical form of the building we inhabit, but a place, memory and time in which we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, feel, intuit, know, understand and live. Therefore, architecture is a natural subject for phenomenological investigation. As individuals, we immerse ourselves in the spaces we inhabit and form our own individual and unique experiences. By immersing ourselves in the spaces we inhabit, we interact with the form, textures and smells of the building which we are in. Can an inert thing such as a building help support the development of human beings' experiences; therefore help with his or her understanding of the world that they are physically in? The concept of phenomenological architecture seeks to provide a balanced and holistic physical manifestation of explaining, describing and representing an architectural intention that places emphasis on the human experience. The human experience includes paying particular emphasis on some of the essentials which help develops an experience. Essentials such as bodily senses, memories, materiality and perception are examined. This therefore creates a focus by using architecture as a catalyst in creating human experiences. In conclusion, phenomenology added with architecture does not fully explain phenomenological architecture, but it is how architecture works and helps encourage phenomena and experiences which creates phenomenological architecture.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.121 | 0.085 |
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".