Advocating Rights and Space for Every Voice!: Through Neera Adarkar's community activism and advocacy for urban preservations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research aims to explore the role of women in the field of architecture, examining their work, participation, and impact to enhance the visibility of their contributions. In a survey of the world’s 100 biggest architecture practices, only three were headed by women, and just two had as many female managers as male, according to magazine Dezeen in November (Matthew Ponsford, CNN, 2018). The question here isn’t just about asking about the absence of woman architects, but the call is to infuse equity for women in the real sense in the architectural profession by talking about the visibility of women in architecture. The notion of architecture as a profession dominated by men should be discarded. The realities of the profession demonstrate that women have adeptly integrated into the traditionally male-dominated culture.<br/><br/>“Feminism isn’t about making women stronger. Women are strong, it’s about changing the <br/>the way the world perceives the strength” (G.D Anderson, 2019)<br/><br/>With a notable absence of visibility in the past, magazines represent a pivotal shift towards inclusivity and recognition within the architectural community. Through captivating narratives, they celebrate the talent and resilience of architects, inspiring future generations to break barriers and thrive in the field. After thoroughly reviewing magazine publications focusing on female architects, a notable trend emerged: they were predominantly published post-2012. Furthermore, renowned magazines like Azure, a Canadian media outlet featuring “30 Must-Know Women Architects,” or Dezeen from London highlighting “The 50 <br/>Most Powerful Women in Architecture and Design,” along with Rethinking the Future, an online platform based in India showcasing “20 Women in Architecture of the 21st Century Shaping the World,” each only mentioned one woman architect from India.<br/><br/>When examining the realm of female architects in India, only two books have been published on the subject. Madhavi Desai authored “Women Architects and Modernism in India: Narratives and Contemporary Practices” in 2017, while Mary N. Woods penned “Women Architects in India: Histories of Practice in Mumbai and Delhi” in the same year. Initially, they collaborated on a single book, but later diverged, resulting in two distinct publications with slightly varied perspectives and selection criteria for women architects. Madhavi Desai revealed in an interview that, “It took 10 years to write because I had no funding and no institutional support. I had to work on it slowly over time, interviewing women if I happened to fly into a particular city for another project. It was very sporadic. It was challenging to source the material on these women, as they were largely invisible. It seemed impossible to find enough material on them. There is hardly any archival material available.” (Parlour Collective, 2020) <br/><br/>Although the above-mentioned books have catalogued and provided brief essays on approximately 40 female architects in India, they still fall short of offering comprehensive insights into each individual. Therefore, my research endeavours to concentrate on architect Neera Adarkar, with an attempt to trace her contributions within the intricate tapestry of India’s economic and political landscape. The aim is to unveil the intricacies of her influence on the architectural domain. Through thorough analysis and investigation, the research aims to shed light on the profound impact of Adarkar’s designs and ideologies in shaping India’s built environment.<br/>
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it