Collaborative design in a context of sustainability: The epistemological an practical implications of the precautionary principle for design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainable design is an approach that seeks to adopt an ethic of the future, where the vision of the solutions is based on a temporal and spatial perspective that is predominantly long-term and global. Design is characterized by its projective and ambivalent nature, and therefore a conscious effort to anticipate the outcomes of design intentions is crucial. Consequently, all design is inherently laden with uncertainty, doubt, and specifically in some technology-driven design projects - contradictions and controversies. Typically, such uncertainties and contradictions are not considered during the initial phase, since the main goal at this phase is to simplify the problem, and therefore these anomalies are often omitted, as they are seen to be outside the boundaries of the design problem. How can designers consider the uncertainties and contradictions during conceptualization, as well as consider the benefits resulting from their design proposals? Designers in their sustainable design practice must consider (1) the multiple objectives and criteria; (2) the multiple users and user preferences; (3) the multiple design alternatives; (4) the complex changing global situation; and (5) the knowledge from the various disciplines comprising the design project. A collective systems thinking approach to design addresses these concerns. Consequently, the theoretical basis of the precautionary principle is directly in line with this approach to design. This presentation will discuss the epistemological and practical implications of the precautionary principle for design in this context.
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 | 0.040 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".