BEYOND ENGINEERING DESIGN: WHAT ARE THE NATURAL BOUNDARIES OF DESIGN EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOR CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design is a key present and future contributor to the wealth of nations. It is a discipline in the sense that it is a coherent body of thought and practice, but in academia is almost invariably distributed across disciplines concerned with particular kinds of design. Successful design work involves many such disciplines. Contemporary design practice demonstrates work organizations in which no one discipline has privilege of priority. Several trends, including globalization, environmental limits, multiple clients and criteria, limited disciplinary perspectives, design tools, collaboration, disruptive technologies and changing patterns of design education point to an increasing scope both for the act of design in society and of the disciplines that must effectively interact on design problems. An implication is a need for a corresponding increase in communication and collaboration across all relevant design disciplines.
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 | 0.045 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.044 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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.
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".