Design Thinking and ICT to Create Sustainable Development Actions - Design Thinking, ICT and Sustainable Development
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
Environmental problems are complex, open and poorly defined. University students can be trained to solve environmental problems and to create actions to repair, preserve, manage or improve the environment. Some organizations have begun using design thinking with ICT to help students and the public solve complex problems. Design thinking is a creative and collaborative form of work during which intuition is important, solutions are numerous, experimentation arrives quickly, failure is perceived as learning and, mostly, consumersâ needs are taken into consideration. In the framework of a rigorous process and specific tools, design thinking calls in creative and analytical modes of reasoning for the development of products, services and healthy places adapted to the targeted public. Also, if we want to use ICT to facilitate the design thinking stages, various applications are available: Blendspace (to store all the information found about a problem), Lino (to share pictures of the problem), ICardSort (to link and sort ideas), Loomio (to choose a solution), Padlet (to draw prototypes in teams) and Wrike (to plan in a team).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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