MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312173908 · doi:10.3390/architecture3010001

The Evolution of the Architectural Façade since 1950: A Contemporary Categorization

2022· article· en· W4312173908 on OpenAlex
Carmela Cucuzzella, Negarsadat Rahimi, Aristofanis Soulikias

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchitecture · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture and Art History Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationNoveltySet (abstract data type)Architectural engineeringExpression (computer science)Computer scienceAestheticsEngineeringArtificial intelligenceArtPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The architectural façade has been a site of intensive experimentation and innovation throughout the 20th century, something that continues to this day, resulting in a vast range of architectural imagery, often incohesive in the post-modern reality. This research explores contemporary façade types and classifies the character of exterior building surfaces. In this paper, we aim to explore how the façade has been designed and has affected its surroundings. How and why has the façade evolved in the ways that it has? Is it the material innovation, structural novelty, the new design techniques or new aesthetics? We adopt a method of analytical induction to extract the most prevalent façade themes from relevant contemporary literature, characterize their meanings and categorize them in order to better explain the many sides of the façade. We set out to define the principles of façade design to then develop a general categorization, which can be applied to most building façades in recent history.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.170 · 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