MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W25877506 · doi:10.25916/sut.26291506

Made in China: an alternative design strategy

2024· article· en· W25877506 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fuyuan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCrafts, Textile, and Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chinese manufactured products are operationally effective but have styling (materials and finishes) which is trend-following of the general world market rather than trend-leading. As such, the Chinese have carved out a space in the market place by emulating stylistic elements that are characteristic of established brands. The aim of this research is to develop a design strategy that can effectively create products that are unique and innovative, and will differentiate products from the general market trends by stylistically imbuing them with elements of traditional and contemporary culture. In the case of this research project, Chinese culture. Sony and Braun products were examined to better understand how these products are imbued with culture - based elements that are highly recognizable as originating from their respective countries. In particular, direct comparisons can be made between the early years of Sony and contemporary Chinese manufacturing companies such as Haier and Cacos. Project One focused on developing a design strategy based upon aspects of Chinese culture such as music, dance and the proportions of musical instruments. In contrast, the approach in Project Two was derived from experiential, spiritual and emotional sources of Chinese culture. In progressing from Project One to Project Two, the approach has moved away from the direct application of “form” to a more individualistic interpretation. The developed design strategy was tested through the design of a music electronic appliance called the Butterfly-E. The design strategy was validated when Sampo, a global manufacturer secured a copyright agreement of my 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicCrafts, Textile, and DesignFrench-language works237,207