Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ) is the first and only organization developing and administering an interior design qualification examination in the United States and Canada. This organization also addresses certification, legal registration, and other issues relating to professional qualification. This paper chronicles the most important developments and changes in the formation and early years of NCIDQ from 1970 to 1990. During this period, the organizational membership shifted from representatives of member associations to primarily one of the representatives from state and provincial regulatory boards. Few systematic studies document these formative decades in NCIDQ's early history. Important investigative resources include the organization's meeting minutes, historical summaries of activities and initiatives, and related scholarly articles from journals in the discipline. The research methodology involves a critical, systematic review and historical qualitative analysis of primary and secondary resources through a content analysis by grouping the most relevant, important, and significant content into a historical timeline. The results led to the categories of NCIDQ's founding and governance, examination developments and research, and legal registration and certification. NCIDQ's early history documents efforts to emulate the NCARB model incorporating standards and criteria in education, experience, and examination to address career path standards in interior design. Through these efforts and contributions to the profession, NCIDQ has left an indelible footprint on the formation of the discipline of interior design and forged avenues for future growth, as described herein.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".