Cedric Price, Joan Littlewood: el ejemplo Fun Palace en los archivos del Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La significación crítica del Canadian Centre \nfor Architecture (CCA) de Montreal es \ndecisiva en la interpretación y sistematización \nde proyectos clave de la arquitectura del \ns. XX. Uno de estos casos paradigmáticos es \nel proyecto Fun Palace de Cedric Price y Joan \nLittlewood. Los fondos de CCA proveen una \ninformación privilegiada en forma de dibujos y \nmaterial textual para explicitar este proyecto. \nEn él, se propone una estructura y planta \nliberadas para dar cabida a un nuevo concepto \nde centro cultural durante los años 60: móvil, \nen permanente movimiento y contacto con lo \ncircundante. Ello, además de sus influencias \ny consideraciones culturales previas, tendrá \nimportantes implicaciones en la arquitectura \npara equipamientos culturales de los años \nposteriores, siendo el Centro Pompidou, \nproyectado por Richard Rogers y Renzo Piano, \nuno de los ejemplos más claros.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".