A urbanística de Lucio Costa no contexto da revisão do moderno: análise do Plano piloto da Barra da Tijuca
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Pilot Plan for the urbanization of Barra da Tijuca, Pontal de Sernambetiba and Jacarepaguá, carried out by Lúcio Costa in 1969, was elaborated in a context of revision of the modern movement. From the 1950s, the new urban methodologies that emerged from the criticism of modern practices emphasized the consideration of the existing fabric, the value of environmental and topographical pre-existences, vernacular architecture and integration with the traditional city. The objective of this article is to deepen the understanding and reflect on the urban planning of the Pilot Plan of Barra da Tijuca within the context of the review of the modern movement to understand how the issues occurred in the face of the formal, functional and environmental aspects discussed in this context. The issues analyzed include integration with the local landscape, the particularities of urban morphology, the polynuclear city and the control of future urban dynamics. O Plano Piloto para a urbanização da Barra da Tijuca, o Pontal de Sernambetiba e Jacarepaguá, realizado por Lúcio Costa em 1969, foi elaborado em um contexto de revisão do movimento moderno. A partir da década de 1950, as novas metodologias urbanísticas que surgiram a partir das críticas das práticas modernas enfatizaram a consideração do tecido existente, o valor das preexistências ambientais e topográficas, a arquitetura vernacular e a integração com a cidade tradicional. O objetivo deste artigo é aprofundar a compreensão e refletir sobre a urbanística do Plano Piloto da Barra da Tijuca dentro do contexto da revisão do movimento moderno para perceber como as questões ocorreram diante dos aspectos formais, funcionais e ambientais discutidos neste contexto. As questões analisadas incluem a integração com a paisagem local, as particularidades da morfologia urbana, a cidade polinuclear e o controle da dinâmica urbana futura.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".