Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hegemony of vision and the suppression of other sensory realms has led to an architecture distanced from the human body. Undoubtedly, vision has the ability to receive the greatest amount of information from our surroundings; hence, it has been considered as primary to our perception. However, its interconnection with other bodily sensations is essential to perceive the totality of space; this connection also compensates for the limitations of sight. The purpose of this critique is not to demonize visuality; it is to consider the rhizomatic and interconnected nature of haptic perception of space. Approaching corporeality results in haptic spaces that enhance or suppress our bodily experience of spatial qualities while sharpening our visual experience. A haptic space will introduce more possibilities for bodily actions by focusing on spatiality, unifying the architecture of the foreground with the background. The concept of spatiality merges space and movement of the body, and therefore it can support or suppress the actions. These actions are subjectively performed based on perceived spatial opportunities through haptic perception. The thesis is intended to explore possibilities embedded within haptic space to create a richer architectural experience. It will explore the spatial interconnections between haptic perception, somatosensory system, vision and consequently bodily movements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".