Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present the axes of a mode of epistemological orientation originally designed as a “Compass of theories and theses.” The purpose of this model is to support the possibility of a categorization of architectural theories, hence of architectural theses. It was originally designed to orient doctorate students facing inevitable meditations and doubts regarding the nature of a thesis in architecture as well as the complex nature of knowledge production in architectural theory. An analogical categorization, mirroring both theories and theses, should prove productive to an understanding of the future of theory since doctoral students are called to become the theorists of tomorrow. Pragmatically, the four quadrants are based on an empirical mapping of theories related to four main types of knowledge production here qualified as: prospective versus retrospective, proactive versus retroactive. This compass – itself a theoretical model of architectural theories – is therefore consisted of two main axes: 1 - The axis of epistemological aims allows for the distinction of knowledge productions along a slider situating objects of research and modes of writing theory. This axis distinguishes two poles, one of retrospective and the other of prospective aims of theories. 2 - The axis of tensions between disciplinary and professional projects qualifies typical theoretical oscillations between architecture as a way of thinking and as a mode of action or “project.” This axis distinguishes two poles, one of retroactive and the other of proactive dimensions of theories
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".