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 OpenAlexaff
Carmela Cucuzzella, Negarsadat Rahimi, Aristofanis Soulikias

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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 designNot applicable
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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchitectureSame topicArchitecture and Art History StudiesFrench-language works237,207