Corporeal architecture: a material response to sensorial experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My project began with an interest in sensory experience and the means by which the body engages in architecture. Numerous threads were explored- studying the work of Aalto, Scarpa, Holl, Zumthor and the writing of Pallasmaa; examining the work of artists like David Rokeby and Michael Awad; research about perception and sensation, through Deleuze, J.J. Gibson, Frampton, Frascari...And through personal experience: documenting sites in the city through different seasons, visiting the American Folk Art Museum (and others) in NYC. The project developed into a critique of the critique, referring to the ocularcentric critique. This critique argues that vision has been the focus of architects and designers at the exclusion of the other senses. This critique is a point of departure for my work, which seeks to add a new layer--through a study of the links between the senses (intersensorality) as they occur in the experience of architecture. I have identified a number of key moments in architectural experience that highlight these links and provide a venue for experimentation (moments when a number of the senses are at play). Together with a number of threads and supporting ideas, the design portion of the project tests materials, forms and conditions in order to bring the links between the senses into focus. This design research is contained within my proposed, small addition to an existing branch Library on Queen Street West.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".