LEARNING FROM VILA VALENTE: REDEFINING THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to Loures Municipal Council’s recent proposal for redeveloping the Vila Valente Quarter of Moscavide, an area in urgent need of intervention, by demolishing, starting from scratch and relocating its vulnerable residents, this thesis challenges our responsibilities as architects when it comes to community development, especially with respect to the marginalised in society. We understand that in Henri Lefebvre’s ‘conceived space’ (Lefebvre, 1991) an architect’s work consists of abstract concepts and exclusive codes. Its products are the objects of traditional architecture, reinforcing the very concepts used time and again in planning and development. In contrast, Lefebvre’s ‘lived space’ (Lefebvre, 1991) is about the collective experience of people and is characterised by users’ engagement and experience on site. The lived space can be characterised by the constant changes and evolutions in everyday spaces and creates places that feel alive and have a strong spirit of place. In traditional architectural methods these two spaces are often considered as two separate entities. The manifesto (see Figures 53 and 54), a product of this study, looks at ways in which design, construction and use can consider the conceived and lived spaces simultaneously, to create a dynamic process including the physical and the social realms so that redevelopment can take place while also preserving the spirit of place.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".