MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239773536 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14647905

Weak material: light, time, location and the stuff of architecture

2021· preprint· en· W4239773536 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob Shank

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture and Art History Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectureMateriality (auditing)OnticOntologyArchitectural theoryEpistemologyAestheticsMetaphysicsSociologyComputer sciencePhilosophyVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 1987 essay Weak Architecture the Spanish architectural theorist Ignasi de Sola-Morales asked the question “what role is accorded to architecture in the aesthetic system of contemporary weak thought?”(de Sola-Morales, 1996 [1987], p. 57). Given the increasing contemporary influence of weak ontology (thought) within the discipline of philosophy and the resulting spill over into architectural theory, this thesis asks a similar question repositioned from the viewpoint of the designer: What impact does the philosophy of Weak Ontology have on the design of contemporary architecture? By questioning the objective relationship between person and architecture (the ontological and the ontic), the plurality and incompleteness of architectural experience must be addressed. The project uses the relationship of light and architecture to reevaluate three foundational architectural elements: its materiality, its linear existence in time, and its fixed location. The role of light within architecture becomes the focus not of the investigation itself, but a demonstration of the accumulative and pluralized influences that overlay the Euclidean underpinnings of architectural tectonics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.031
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchitecture and Art History StudiesFrench-language works237,207