Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design is a fundamentally collaborative activity. It commonly calls on a wide range of expertise and is arguably most effective when all contributions can be considered from an early and highly conceptual phase of the process. The sharing of information, particularly in a process that, at its best, involves collective conceptualisation is complicated by the very close and reciprocal relationship between the partial knowledge about the object of design and the mode of expression or representation of these ideas. As the design process and its numerous inputs, iterations and interrelationships become embedded in the communications; knowledge capture, management and access become central issues. This paper will selectively recount some of the substantive evidence for the characteristics of communication environments most supportive to design collaboration. In response to these findings it will introduce the use of wiki as the basis of an environment to provide this support, provide more detailed examples of the ways in which wiki has been adopted in early collaborative experiments and describe the developments currently being implemented, and how these are being tested in use.
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 | 0.044 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".