Création contre science en design, les conditions d’un vrai débat : réponse à Lysianne Léchot Hirt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design practice takes the form of a project. Most often, it is not the only profession or discipline to contribute. In any design project, the use and handling of information are crucial. The support of information must accompany the dialog between trades. While technical drawing allows for exchange between the domains of design and those of engineering, it requires a degree of learning. The technical drawing is an intermediate object of codified design. It is assumed to have been learned in order to be understood. Design produces many information tools for the natural exchanges between trades (sketches, drawings, rough drafts, study models, appearance models). But, contrary to technical drawings, some uncertainty of interpretation may exist and foster misunderstandings. Explaining the design representation tools becomes a subject of interdisciplinary research by design. Sensory design has hybridized the sensory evaluation tools by orienting them within the design project. Some methodological tools illustrate what kind of research can be achieved by design.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".