Bibliographic record
Abstract
This edited volume, published with Routledge in 2011, was the culmination of a three-year project, led jointly with Dr Glenn Adamson (Victoria and Albert Museum) and Dr Giorgio Riello (University of Warwick). I co-wrote the introduction and co-edited the volume, including intellectual direction, author selection, funding applications and chapter editing. The project, funded by grants from the Design History Society and the Florence H. and Eugene N. Myers Charitable Trust, convened 26 historians, designers, architects, sociologists, anthropologists and other humanities and social science researchers active in the UK, Europe, Australia, Asia and America to identify and assess questions and methods for writing histories of design in global networks. Each chapter was paired with a response, designed to expand the discussion and test the methodologies on offer. A major focus was the applicability of methods in the emerging field of global history for design history, and vice versa; this project was the first in any field to investigate these questions directly, and as such was quickly contracted by Routledge as having potential for undergraduate and graduate teaching. The project was public-facing from the onset. Participants first presented their chapters in three open symposia, held at Northwestern University (Evanston, USA), the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Royal College of Art in 2008 and 2009; these were followed by participants-only workshops and correspondence between participants to refine chapters for publication. Topics included: - the global underpinnings of Renaissance material culture - the trade of Indian cottons in the eighteenth-century - the Japanese tea ceremony as a case of ‘import substitution’ - German design in the context of empire - Australian fashions employing ‘ethnic’ motifs - an experimental UK-Ghanaian design partnership - Chinese social networking websites Public responses to the book to date have included invitations to present the project to history and anthropology researchers and students in America, Turkey and Japan as well as extended discussions of the book as part of academic paper presentations and plenary session panel discussions at international conferences in Canada and Brazil.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.152 | 0.027 |
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".