Attending to Objects as Outcomes of Design Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal for this workshop is to provide a venue at CHI for research through design practitioners to materially share their work with each other. Conversation will largely be centered upon a discussion of objects produced through a research through design process. Bringing together researchers as well as their physical work is a means of gaining insight into the practices and outcomes of research through design. If research through design is to continue to develop as a research practice for generating knowledge within HCI, this requires developing ways of attending to its made, material outcomes. The premise of this workshop is simple: We need additional spaces for interacting with and reflecting upon material design outcomes at CHI. The goal of this workshop is to experiment with such a space, and to initially do so without a strong theoretical or conceptual framing.
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 | 0.169 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".