Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing the Landscape is more than creating open spaces -adjusting the relief, organizing building and green elements -planning the Landscape is thinking about the relationship with the world.Nowadays, we must dream of overcoming the modern worldview, proposing other values and ways of operating in the physical world.It is necessary to think of the Landscape as a means of rehearsing overcoming the Copernican revolution, removing man from the center of the universe, critically redesigning the coexistence between men and the natural world, assuming that the collapse of the planet is a mirror of our inability to respect limits and conditions.This text understands a project as a dispute and pact, as the fruit of agreements, as a means of negotiating and tensioning expectations and demands that are often antagonistic, as an exercise in collective construction that goes beyond the exercise of form as a manifestation of authorship or historical affiliation.Therefore, a project can be seen as a space for experimentation and materializing new values.It is also understood that practices are historically constructed and, at the same time, they construct us.Thus, better projects, the result of more successful negotiations, dialectically, will result in the transformation of all the agents who built them.What we build thereafter built us; the Landscape we see is our mirror and, at the same time, our opportunity for transformation and learning.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".