MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7142136333 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.19288293

O clássico moderno ou o moderno clássico?: reflexões sobre os edifícios do IRB e do Maison de France

2014· article· pt· W7142136333 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Cristina Nascentes Cabral, Rodrigo Cury Paraízo, Denise Vianna Nunes, Carolina Mender, Diana Ferraz Nakano, Isabel Lima de Almeida, Lígia Daniela Alves Ferreira, Olívia Vigneron Medeiros, Rafael de Oliveira Gomes da Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2014
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture, Modernity, and Design
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanismContext (archaeology)Work (physics)Architecture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A arquitetura moderna no Brasil não tem uma produção homogênea que possa ser compreendida como tal. Desde a década de 1990, vem sendo feita revisão historiográfica analisando a diversidade de propostas e leituras sobre a vasta produção no país. A cidade do Rio de Janeiro concentra grande parte dessa produção e autores muito variados. A proposta deste trabalho é cotejar aspectos teóricos, formais e tectônicos de dois importantes edifícios: o Instituto de Resseguros do Brasil (IRB, 1941) e o Maison de France (1951), ambos situados na Esplanada do Castelo, área aterrada com os resíduos da demolição do Morro do Castelo, região que abriga diversas edificações modernas. Procura-se identificar características de composição consideradas clássicas e compreender como são empregadas. Este trabalho foi desenvolvido no Laboratório de Análise Urbana e Representação Digital (LAURD) no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Urbanismo (LAURD/PROURB/UFRJ) com o apoio da FAPERJ e do CNPq.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicArchitecture, Modernity, and DesignFrench-language works237,207