The Coexistence of Opposites in Contemporary Architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical and rhetorical studies that dealt with the concept of opposites have always dealt with the language of architecture and its texts in analysis and theorizing, as the texts multiplied and accumulated and their qualities changed and contradicted each other.Some of them were distinct, and others were complicated in their meaning.The study aims to understand the nature of opposites in architectural practice at the level of text production and reading by Shedding light on employing the concept of coexistence as a consensual strategy that can formulate and read contemporary architectural text based on a system of intellectual and formal perceptions (opposites) and pairing them to create a multi-level architectural text that is understandable, and conceptual and semantic systems governed by previous perceptions (collective memory), to preserve what is Inherited and allowing for what is contemporary.The research reached the importance of developing a conceptual or semantic model that facilitates the process of dialectical thinking, represented by knowing the levels and formulas for achieving coexistence between opposites at the level of text production and reading, and thus the immunity of architectural texts from unstudied contradictions.The study conducted in the research adopted a qualitative, descriptive and analytical approach, represented by collecting and analyzing data from previous studies to build a theoretical framework and apply it to the (Central Bank Tower) project in the city of Baghdad.A group of architectural designers surveyed it to arrive at results, conclusions and then recommendations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".