Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a philosophical reflection on a first-year design studio, conducted as an experimental deviation from traditional ‘all too human’ models of architectural education. The pedagogical approach ventures into broader ethical concerns surrounding the nonhuman and the art of building. In the studio, familiar human standpoints were decentered through the art of storytelling, drawing insight from discourses in posthuman education and nonhuman narratology which were interweaved into the design and performance of a marionette theatre. Throughout the term, the theme and its methodological and representational challenges were carried out in three main acts: the marionette, the theatre and the performance—with an intermission assignment posed as a point of critical reflection. At differing scales, each phase prompted different considerations related to nonhuman characters, the audience, performer and performance. Instead of assessing the studio’s outcomes within a positivistic framework, this paper presents portraits of student materializations from the semester. In this way, the results are framed heuristically, echoing the storytelling approach of the studio itself. Finally, a critical postscript reflects on a hypothetical direction for future studios.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".