Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Special Collection Women’s Display: Women’s Exhibitions and Exhibition Design in the 20th Century explores why, how and under what conditions women made exhibitions about the built environment and who these women were, to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the exhibitions themselves and their design across different individuals, collaborative groups, time periods and geographical contexts. Women were involved in the financing, planning, organizing, critiquing and staging of exhibitions since the 19th century, even though their contributions, aims and impacts are often little known. The articles aim to broaden and diversify the understanding of exhibitions made by women in the 20th century by focusing on subjects whose stories have been forgotten or marginalized in architectural history. For many women, exhibition design was not only an important career step, but also a political and social commitment and a collaborative form of work voicing critique and an experimental laboratory for testing new approaches. Exhibition design proved to be an accessible niche for many woman architects, who discovered in it a chance to gain a foothold in the profession and to have a platform from which to speak out publicly. The exhibition also opened the opportunity of trying out new design concepts and making a theoretical contribution. A series of exhibitions in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Russia, Cuba, Canada and the USA from the 1920s to the 1980s are analyzed, using different approaches to the study of women in architecture, illuminating both individual biographies and collective works in the context of historical and social contingency.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.114 | 0.053 |
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".