MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209008119 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14646015.v1

A Flat World for a Short Real

2021· preprint· en· W3209008119 on OpenAlexaff
Saman Soleimani-Deilamani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture and Computational Design
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectureSign (mathematics)NegotiationGeniusBinary oppositionAestheticsVisionSociologyEpistemologyVisual artsLiteratureArtPhilosophySocial scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short Real is the territory where the discourse of architecture thrives on binary oppositions and metaphors at the expense of the everyday and earthly realities of architecture. It produces a conspiracy that propagates that the Hinged-Door-Leaf (the door) only becomes architecture when it is 'a self-referential sign' ('doorness') or a subjective 'place' (the 'threshold'). Although seemingly contradictory, both concepts bestow 'architecture' with an 'essence': something that 'happens in the mind', is absolute and is analogous to philosophical ideals. These concepts undermine the Genius of architecture as a unique design discipline that is 'deceptive', contingent and paradoxical. Flat World, as the territory of operation for the projects presented here, forges Design-Conspiracies to Negotiate the Conspiracies of Short Real by focusing on the ubiquitous Workings of the Hinged-Door-Leaf and employing the Paranoid-critical Method (PcM) of Surrealism. It situates its operations at 'point supreme' where all oppositions are present without being 'contradictory'. The Design-Conspiracies challenge conventions and rethink the relationship of elements of Construction that make the Hinged-Door-Leaf architects' greatest invention. In the process, Design-Conspiracies manage to envision another way that architecture, humans and the built world can relate to one another.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchitecture and Computational DesignFrench-language works237,207