Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alive/En Vie was the first design exhibition to showcase a new breed of designers and artists who are currently renegotiating our relationship with the 'living' and who operate within a sliding scale of a 'natural nature' and a new 'programmable nature' in the quest for innovative ecological design models. As curator, Collet's key driver for the exhibition was to re-evaluate the process and idea of design when confronted with the 'living'. How does working with living materials and technologies alter the kinds of products we make, the type of manufacture we depend on, and the design of our future everyday? Her curation identified five themes which provide a new hierarchy to contextualise how design and living technology can relate to an emerging sustainable design discourse influenced by recent scientific advancements such as synthetic biology. From an exploration of biomimicry principles, to co-designing with living organisms, hacking biological systems, or integrating living with non-living materials, the selection of 34 international designers highlighted new departures across architecture, furniture design, fashion, jewellery, products and textiles. As part of the curation Collet commissioned five new pieces of work from: Philip Beesley (Canadian Architect); Mette Ramsgaard Thomsen (Head of CITA Research Centre, Royal Academy of Fine Art in Copenhagen); Ecologic Studio (London and Turin); Alexandra Daisy Ginsberg and Suzanne Lee (BioCouture). 'Alive' included the world premiere of several projects developed specifically for the exhibition, including the first shoe created with bacteria (Suzanne Lee) and the first algae printer (Marin Sawa). The exhibition, and is accompanied by a catalogue and website, both edited by Collet.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.010 |
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".