Scaling the Imagination: The Creation of the Subject-Object Divide in Visual Perception and Landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper unpacks the history of seeing and the separation of subjectivity from objectivity in order to establish a framework for landscape and architectural design interventions on large scales. As perception shifted from an act of subjective creation of meaning to one operating under the auspices of empiricism, a chasm opened between the observer and the observed. Instead of locating the meaning of the observed object within the subject, perception for Moderns became an act of describing the world as-is. The resulting proliferation of descriptions of large-scale, interrelated ecological and urban systems became unintelligible to the human imagination, becoming metaphorical “giants” in our cultural and artistic realms. In the process, the world has became both more distant and seemingly more conquerable. The author suggests confronting the limits of the imagination through exercises in scales in order to negotiate the increasing distance between subject (human observers) and object (the natural and built world).
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".