A Design History of Design: Complexity, Criticality, and Cultural Competence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les histoires de l’art et du design ont délaissé, au cours des quatre dernières décennies, l’étude canonique des objets, des artistes/concepteurs et des styles et se sont tournées vers des recherches plus interdisciplinaires. Nous soutenons néanmoins que les historiens et historiennes du design doivent continuer de pousser leur utilisation d’approches puisant dans la culturelle matérielle et la criticalité afin de combler des lacunes dans l’histoire du design et de développer des méthodes et des approches pertinentes pour son étude. Puisant dans notre expérience d’enseignement auprès de la génération des « milléniaux », qui sont portés vers un « design militant », nous offrons des exemples pédagogiques qui ont aidé nos étudiants et étudiantes à assimiler des histoires du design responsables, engagées et réflexives et à comprendre la complexité et la criticalité du 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 | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".