Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay posits the role that the spaces for architectural production have played in supporting a design ethos that has historically neglected our relationship with the Land, and how its reconceptualization could contribute to a ‘spiritual and cultural’ shift through a placed-based ethical framework. More specifically, the space where design typically takes place is most often described in English as the “studio”, a term that has been adopted by universities and professional offices alike, and is broadly considered the core of architectural education and production around the world. Yet, surprisingly, we rarely question - why a “studio”? What is the nature of a “studio” exactly, and how does this potentially impact how we teach design and, subsequently, what we design? Can an element of the sacred infiltrate the spaces of architectural production in the twenty-first century in an effort to prioritize the flourishing of all life on our planet, and how can Indigenous knowledge guide us along this path? The essay first examines the history of the “studio” and questions its ongoing relevance, as well as recent alternatives. This is followed by a proposition for the concept of a “design lodge” that might best be able to inspire “transformational” change in architectural education by transcending conventional fixations on object-centred design.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".