It models density decay with geometric precision. The first 60 operators concentrate approximately 95 percent of the modeled citation mass within a ten-million-reference system. The remaining 440 register presence but do not define curvature. Below them, an extrapolated population of 99,000 scholars constitutes the long tail. The pyramid is steep. The asymmetry is not correctable. It is structural. Exclusion is regime differentiation. Foundational substrates—Plato, Kant—are not omitted through oversight. Their mass functions as background radiation, metabolized across millennia, not as discrete contemporary curvature. Literary reservoirs—Borges, Kafka—supply conceptual material but remain confined to narrative regimes rather than dispersing transversally across philosophy, STS, political ecology, and urban theory. Discipline-specific specialists—Aldo Rossi, Christopher Alexander—exercise gravity within architectural subfields but do not deform the cross-field topology. The corpus is not a hall of fame. It is a detection threshold. Absence indicates gradient containment, not theoretical insufficiency.
Calibration is the operative term. The corpus does not emerge from subjective survey or peer nomination. It follows from Lotka's law, Pareto distributions, and the empirical regularity of heavy-tailed citation regimes. The lower detection threshold—approximately 500 to 2,000 citations, adjusted for disciplinary baselines—functions as a phase transition. Below it, influence remains confined to enclaves. Above it, curvature becomes transversal. The 500 are those whose mass deforms the field beyond their origin. The rest orbit. That is not judgment. That is topology. A methodological decision deserves emphasis: the 100-macrofield grid. Without a fixed observational frame, dispersion collapses into anecdote. Lloveras stabilizes the grid precisely to make curvature measurable. The choice of fields—from Affect Theory to Urban Morphology—is not offered as exhaustive ontology. It is a calibration surface. Any modification would alter dispersion metrics. Version 1.0.0 therefore maintains taxonomic closure. Subsequent versions may recalibrate, but each remains internally fixed. This is how instruments work. They do not apologize for their architecture.
What presents itself as a list is actually an observational platform. Anto Lloveras has not compiled names; he has assembled a detection architecture capable of registering what citation asymmetry always produced but academic discourse preferred to narrate as pluralist horizontality. The 500 operators mark the threshold where discursive density ceases to be local and begins to deform trajectories across 100 stabilized macrofields. This is cartography without apology. The instrument does not ask for permission. It calibrates and publishes. The field has long operated with an implicit map. Syllabus construction, editorial decisions, research trajectories—all presuppose a working model of concentration gradients. Lloveras externalizes that tacit geometry, fixes its taxonomic grid, and releases the coordinates. The gesture is simultaneously generous and ruthless. Generous because it offers navigational clarity to anyone disoriented by the asymmetry. Ruthless because it exposes the inequality architecture that polite academic convention prefers to aestheticize as conversation.
A convergence appears in the calibration notes: Denise Scott Brown's "active socioplastics" (2007) and Lloveras's socioplástica (circa 2010) name parallel operations. Both identify plasticity within social formations. Both operate between given structure and emergent process. The divergence is regime and scale. Scott Brown's formulation functions as methodological instrument within urban design. Lloveras's operates as ontological observatory mapping gravitational structures across disciplines. The convergence is registered, metabolized, and situated. No priority claim is asserted. This is how mature discourse metabolizes parallel emergence. Limitations are declared, not concealed. Database dependence privileges anglophone ecosystems. Temporal bias affects pre-digital operators. The 100 macrofields stabilize observation at the cost of alternative taxonomies. These are not admissions of failure. They are operational boundaries. A cartographic instrument declares its projection and scale. It does not pretend to be the territory. The corpus maps density, not truth. It registers gravitational gradients, not merit. Its validity lies in structural coherence and declared calibration, not universal representational claim.
The decalogue condenses the operation. Citation mass is discursive density. Density generates curvature. Curvature enables orientation. Orientation requires stable taxonomic calibration. Inclusion follows measurable threshold, not normative evaluation. Numerical sequencing registers gradient, not merit. Dispersion across macrofields defines transversal influence. Database variability is infrastructural condition. Versioning preserves internal stability. The corpus functions as cartographic instrument, not tribunal. Each sentence is a protocol instruction. The decalogue is not manifesto. It is user manual. What Lloveras has produced is not a text about the field. It is a field conditioner. Once the grid is published, once the rings are stratified, once the 500 are named, the topology becomes available for use. Citation decisions, research trajectories, institutional self-descriptions—all can now navigate with reference to a stabilized calibration. The corpus will be contested, revised, extended. That is its function. A map that cannot be redrawn is useless. A map that does not exist cannot be redrawn. Version 1.0.0 now exists. The next version will be someone else's calibration. That is how instruments propagate.
Lloveras, A. (2026). *Socioplastics-750-Gravitational-Corpus_v1.0.0_2026.pdf*. LAPIEZA-LAB. https://antolloveras.blogspot.com
