MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W621303676

UNStudio : the floating space

2007· book· en· W621303676 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aaron Betsky

Bibliographic record

VenueTaschen eBooks · 2007
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture and Computational Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStudioArchitectureErasmus+Space (punctuation)Modernism (music)Bridge (graph theory)Architectural engineeringHierarchyEngineeringVisual artsArt historyArtComputer sciencePolitical scienceThe Renaissance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UN Studio, led by Dutch architects Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, creates spaces that are surprisingly innovative. Their work doesn't rehash Modernism but rather embraces the digital age via the invention of new, time-based techniques expanding the imagination, exploding the hierarchy of the process, and encouraging the input of different disciplines. UN Studio's architecture is the result of a strategy that repeatedly and constantly advances in different ways via leitmotifs called design models. The most important examples of this new kind of architecture are the New Mercedes-Benz Museum in Stuttgart and the Erasmus bridge in Rotterdam, which has become the town's new landmark. Another manifest aim is to come up with fundamentally new ideas for complex infrastructure projects and to give these a contemporary structure that fosters future (including urban) development.This can be seen, for example, at the central train station in Arnhem, at the Ponte Parodi pier in Genoa, and at the Canadian Centre for Architecture's (CCA) prestigious Competition for the Design of Cities. This book presents an overview of UN Studio's work to date.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTaschen eBooksSame topicArchitecture and Computational DesignFrench-language works237,207