MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964070454 · doi:10.2495/dn100491

The pedagogy of bio-design: methodology development

2010· article· en· W1964070454 on OpenAlexaff
Tijen Roshko

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on ecology and the environment · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Design and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDevelopment (topology)Systems engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the fundamental pedagogical objectives and methodologies that were employed to investigate the potential of bio-design as a valid platform for design education. The broader goal was to expand the boundaries of applicability of interior design and to encourage multi-dimensional design strategies in which sustainable design principles are embedded explicitly into the design process. Sustainable design can be defined as a cultural construct that enriches both environmental and social conditions with the purpose of nurturing the quality of life indefinitely at every level. In concert, bio-design is an interdisciplinary field, where man-made and natural systems intersect, and it has been exploited as a pedagogical platform in a graduate level design studio. The interior design students were allowed to engage in the iterative nature of biodesign methodology. As such, the investigation was engaged with the notion of "Nature as Culture" and aimed to re-establish the intrinsic human connection with Nature. This paper discusses the methodological development of bio-design studies in the context of Interior Design education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on ecology and the environmentSame topicSustainable Design and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207