Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESEARCH BACKGROUND: In 2013, Cottrell, Elliott and Pintos-Lopez worked together to produce a number of creative interventions in the then recently opened RMIT Design Hub. This project explored the building through direct, material dialogue; an emerging mode of practice-based architectural critique whose value is only recently being articulated (see, for example, Inflexions 8: Radical Pedagogies http://inflexions.org/radicalpedagogy/main.html). Research began with a workshop held at the Design Hub in June 2013; the workshop developed into a group exhibition seven weeks later. RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION: A perforated metal box the same dimensions of the lift interior blocks a straightforward exit from the lift. Building users physically pushed this box (which was contained inside a second perforated metal cube) to open up a narrow exit corridor. This project inverted the passive user/active building dynamic of the lift. Moving these perforated screens created moiré effects seen against the gridded circle pattern of the building facade. The originality of the work lies in these disorientating perceptual effects, which aim to destabilise the conception of the building as a fixed entity. The project extends Cottrell's research into the complexity of threshold conditions, and opens up practices of destabilising architecture as a new area for ongoing inquiry. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE: The project was published in Ednie-Brown, P. (2015). "Architecture of the Occasion." Architectural Design 85(3): 100-105. Architectural Design is one of the discipline's leading journals, published bi-monthly for over 80 years. It positions itself at the forefront of architectural debate - stimulating discussion on theoretical, creative and technological advances, as well as the social, cultural and environmental implications.The collaboration was partially supported by a residency funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, through the Immediations project.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.227 | 0.053 |
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".