A Design Methodology for Exploring and Communicating System Values and Assumptions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper attempts to make two contributions to discussions related to TEI: (1) an analysis of how tools used for working with TEI documents encourage certain values and make certain assumptions about the work of textual editing and (2) a report on a methodological framework from outside the humanities that suggests a unique way to study such systems. Borrowing models of design research from the fields of design and human-computer interaction, I argue that prototypes can be used to create new conceptual knowledge, to investigate the values and assumptions of sociotechnical systems, and to communicate alternative visions of those systems. I first analyze an existing tool, the Versioning Machine, as a way of focusing the design of a prototype that reimagines several aspects of that original—specifically, I argue that the Versioning Machine creates an environment that to some extent assumes that TEI documents are created by one editor and intended for one instantiation. The prototype presented experiments with an alternative vision of textual editing as bringing encoded texts and interpretations together in multiple and flexible instantiations. Rather than a technical problem with an optimal solution, I approach this design process as an opportunity to ask how prototypes can give designers access to conceptual issues and allow users to enact alternative values and imagine alternative futures. This research was supported by the Modernist Versions Project, which is funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Partnership Development Grant.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it