Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the contradictory circuits of (neo)cybernetics in contemporary architectural and urbanistic discourse by reframing them within the ‘environmentalitarian’ epoch. Cybernetics is today simultaneously exalted as a liberatory mechanism for designing emergence, complexity and open-endedness, and constitutive of an indiscernible mode of decentralised, environmentally modulated control. The history of cyberneticisation has received renewed attention as the key catalyst for environmentalisation, and as the predominant control paradigm underlying late-capitalist Environmentality. Given the profound spatial implications of this trajectory, understanding architecture’s own cybernetic entanglements is a much-needed step towards a critical revaluation of environmentality. The article thus maps the cybernetic imaginary ‘at large’ across architecture – alongside landscape architecture and urbanism – under various guises such as adaptation, responsiveness, cultivation, resilience or conversation. By probing the salient characteristics of these approaches, their problematic proximity to the logic of cybernetic capitalism is contextualised in relation to the broader ontological and ontopolitical questions of the Anthropocene era. The article concludes by tracing possible conceptual trajectories amid and beyond the restrictive circuits of Environmentality: from adaptation to contingency, via Yuk Hui’s proposal for a cosmopolitics grounded in affirmative fortuity; and from responsiveness to response-ability, via Donna Haraway’s experimental material-semiotics of sympoiesis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".