Brussel, stad van Kantoren. Het Berlaymontgebouw en de transformatie van de Leopoldswijk.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brussels, city of offices. The Berlaymont building and the transformation of the Leopold district. So far, the Berlaymont building has always fallen under the radar of Belgian architectural history. Nevertheless, it is home to the European Commission, a powerful body that has ever-increasing impact on our daily life. When the building does get written about it is generally in the context of the systematic transformation of the Leopold district into a speculative conquered land, or as a symbol of the European bureaucratic machine that promulgates regulations with no feeling for local affinities and traditions. When the building had to be decontaminated of asbestos in the 1990s, the picture of a “Berlaymonster” was complete; indeed, more time and money was required to fix it than had actually been required to build it in the first place. Many critics attributed these problems to the riginal architectural concept, yet the central theme in this story is that of indecision. In such a climate, architecture cannot flourish: the Berlaymont building was constructed against the will of seemingly everyone. So the fact that its silhouette today appears in the logo of the European Commission has less to do with vision and insight into architecture’s power of attraction, and more to do with a modus vivendi that developed gradually between building and user over time. This article seeks to demonstrate how the building came into being out of the interaction between two mutually reinforcing phenomena,namely the transformation of the Leopold district into an office quarter in the post-war period and the installation of the European institutions in Brussels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.221 | 0.054 |
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".