Reflecting on Interdisciplinarit(ies)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article serves as the introduction to a volume dedicated to the question of interdisciplinarity in architectural history. In view of the field’s growing diversity and complexity – as well as the risk of its potential fragmentation – the authors emphasize the importance of engaging with interdisciplinarity in a critical and deliberate manner. The first section traces the history of the concept and considers how architectural history as a discipline has positioned itself in relation to it. The second section outlines the range of methodological approaches and theoretical reflections proposed by the volume’s contributors across its various chapters. While not aiming to capture the full spectrum of contemporary interdisciplinary practices, these contributions offer a representative overview of the trajectories along which the field is currently developing. These include postcolonial frameworks; intersections with environmental history; the impact of digital technologies; the articulation of both material and immaterial histories of architecture; critical engagement with architectural representation and its relationship to visual studies; the transformation of the traditional monographic model; and the role of collaborative research as a driving force of interdisciplinarity, among others.
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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".