MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2225044446 · doi:10.3917/sdd.002.0020

Le design à l’épreuve du concept de pratique

2015· article· fr· W2225044446 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Proulx

Bibliographic record

VenueSciences du Design · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicContemporary art, education, critique
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente une analyse de l’activité de design à la lumière du concept de pratique proposé par Christopher Higgins. Inspiré par les réflexions soutenues par le philosophe états-unien Alasdair MacIntyre, dans son ouvrage Après la vertu (2006), Higgins a développé une liste de 14 critères permettant d’examiner si une activité est en mesure de satisfaire et de réclamer le statut de pratique. Une pratique, comme le suggère MacIntyre, est formée d’activités humaines socialement établies et reconnues et qui se réalisent par l’obéissance à des normes d’excellence correspondantes. Nous tentons de montrer qu’à la lumière de ce modèle, le design ne peut pas véritablement se réclamer d’une pratique.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.059
Scholarly communication0.0170.018
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciences du DesignSame topicContemporary art, education, critiqueFrench-language works237,207