Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores drawing’s potential to inf(l)ect design processes by generating and holding in incipiency sensibilities and vitality affect derived from lived movement-experience. It speculates on how, by doing so, it might carry through and infuse aesthetic or existential values into modes of inhabitation. The author claims that if drawing is to make a difference for architecture, it must be broached from the perspective of ontogenetic processes in order to understand how its singular intrinsic forces might co-compose with extraneous forces to produce surplus-value from within object(ive) constellations. Grounded in process philosophy, and drawing from dance, the essay examines ways of thrusting drawing into movement-thinking to activate its self-creative autonomy, coagulating and transforming a multitude of heterogeneous occurrences into novelty. It then examines how this approach, or manner of drawing, might a(e)ffect our understanding of concepts such as ‘site’, ‘body’, architectural ‘form’ and ‘inhabitation’.
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 | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".