MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2543931868 · doi:10.1111/joid.12086

Lessons in Diversity: Origins of Interior Decoration Education in the United States, 1870–1930

2016· article· en· W2543931868 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bridget A. May

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Interior Design · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueArchitecture, Design, and Social History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInterior designDiversity (politics)TasteNewspaperCurriculumQuarter (Canadian coin)EngineeringVisual artsPaintingSociologyArtMedia studiesHistoryPedagogyPsychologyArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, many factors, such as greater emphasis on the importance of the home and its decoration, contributed to the separation of interior decoration from other similar vocations. By the early twentieth century, interior decoration as a profession and occupation had begun to gain acceptance in the market place and academic world. Print media attention focused on the interior decorator who was no longer merely a wall painter or furniture salesman but was a furnisher and marketer of art and good taste. Advances in formal education and a culture of professionalism contributed to the realization by practitioners and others that interior decoration required specialized knowledge so many began to push for training in newspapers, books, and magazines. This study discusses the origins of interior decoration education in the 1870s, when the first courses related to the home were offered at mid–western land–grant universities, to 1930, the year before the organization of the American Institute of Interior Decorators (AID) was founded. It covers the variety of training methods for decorators and the sometimes conflicting views of early advocates for the profession and for education. It points out tensions within interior decoration and conflicts with other similar fields. Finally, it looks at several university programs in different academic homes and the various course titles used in the curriculums. If training for interior decorators between 1870 and 1930 could be described in a single word, it probably would be diversity. This was reflected in the many means and places to acquire training, the institutions that offered it, and the opinions about it. The earliest training methods were those that were most readily accessible for most people, such as self–education or apprenticeships. They were soon joined by interior decoration courses and programs at various art, design, and industrial art schools; colleges and universities; teachers’ colleges; and other institutions across the United States. Throughout this early period, institutional training evolved from a single course to complete programs. The first bachelor's degrees were awarded. This early period also established ties between interior decoration and the disciplines of fine arts, architecture, and home economics. Diversity was important to interior decoration at its inception because it permitted individuality, provided availability for more people, and accommodated the evolving definition and practice in the field. At the same time, it reflected and contributed to such challenges as a lack of identity and cohesion. In education, this diversity was evident in the variety of institutions offering study in interior decoration, its various academic homes, the assortment of course and program titles, and differences in program requirements. A lack of standards and consensus in education helped to create gaps and disparities in preparation, knowledge, and skill among practitioners. Interior decoration did not resolve these problems. As a result, they became the foundation on which interior design was built.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,116
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,230

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,008
Communication savante0,0020,003
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,056
Tête enseignante GPT0,277
Écart entre enseignants0,222 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Interior DesignMême sujetArchitecture, Design, and Social HistoryTravaux en français237 207