MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W411991903

Searching for open form: the pinwheel plan in the work of John Andrews

2013· article· en· W411991903 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueQueensland's institutional digital repository (The University of Queensland) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture, Modernity, and Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)ArchitectureWork (physics)SociologyArchitectural engineeringHistoryEngineeringVisual artsArtArchaeologyMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the pinwheel plan type assumes its place within practices of twentieth century architecture, the evolution of the type has never been traced historically. For the first time, this paper will open an account of the pinwheel plan type from its emergence in Le Corbusier’s spiral form projects of the 1930s to its proliferation in the international scene of the 1950s and ’60s. Taken up seriously in works by James Stirling and the members of Team 10, including Alison Smithson, Piet Blom, Aldo van Eyck and Jaap Bakema, as part of search for flexible openended plan forms, the pinwheel plan had virtually disappeared by the mid-1970s. Drawing upon this reconstructed history of the pinwheel plan, the paper will frame the early work of eminent Australian architect, John Andrews, who adopted the plan type in a little known housing scheme for the Canadian Stelco company in 1964. Andrews’ use of the pinwheel plan marks a critical moment in his creative development in which the architect turns from the use of relatively simple geometric forms in plan to the kinds of geometrically sophisticated forms that dominated his practice from the mid 1960s onwards. Analysis of Andrews’ design for the Bellmere Public School (1964-65) will be used to evidence the impact of pinwheel forms on Andrews’ technique of planning. Yet it is Andrews’ development beyond the type during the period of the mid 1960s that would eventually mark an important legacy of the architect’s work for the culture of contemporary 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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.188 · 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