The Design Space of Schematic Palladian Plans for Two Villa Topologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the plan topology for the layout of the rooms of a Palladian villa, we ask what is the design space of possible Palladian plans. What does this space look like in terms of dimensions and proportions? Two plan topologies are examined to throw some light on this question. One is that of the Villa Angarano while the other is that of the Villa Badoer. A Maple program was written for each topology to solve the equations for room proportions, to cycle through the possible proportional spacing of the underlying Tartan grid, and to plot out the possible plans in the design space. The programs eliminate from the design space those alternatives that violate basic Palladian constraints, such as no room having an aspect ration greater than 2:1, and such additional constraints that we and other authors have found. A selection of the plotted output of plans in the design space for each topology is presented as well as threedimensional plots showing the number of plan alternatives in different regions of the critical parameter space, namely, the length and aspect ratio of the plan. We believe that this is the first instance of enumerated Palladian plans which goes beyond topology to examine issues of dimension and proportion. One conclusion is that one cannot scale a Palladian plan topology to fit any set of overall dimensions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".