The Philosophy of Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having created a significant body of research on various aspects of aesthetics (such as the aesthetics of nature and architecture) Glenn Parsons, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ryerson University, brings together and systematizes philosophical findings relevant to design from the fields of ‘aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of technology’ (p. 2). The author uses the Modernist movement's legacy as a starting point for his philosophical investigations of these findings and tests the validity of various theoretical standpoints by comparing and contrasting them with the Modernist perspective on design, beauty, and functionality. The main text of the book begins with Parsons investigating the ontology of design in ch. 1 ‘What is Design?’ where he surveys various definitions of design and, navigating between Jones’ understanding of design as ‘the intentional creation of a new kind of thing’ (p. 9), Bamford's theory of singular and multiple designs and Davies’ discussion of site-specific architectural designs that take into account ‘the site itself… as a part of their work’ (p. 17), demonstrates the complexity of the concept of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".