EXCAVATING OUR FUTURES- Exploring Participation in Experiential Scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, 'Experiential Futures'—“the practice of making manifest, one or more fragments of an ostensible future world in any medium or combination of media...”—has been used to bring hard-to-imagine, future possibilities into immediate and observable settings (Candy, 3). Yet, central to what is supposed to make Experiential Futures 'tick' is an experience which, up until this point, has yet to be studied with rigour. This project uses Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) methodology, to explore in detail the thoughts, feelings and sense-making activities engaged in by participants during a set of student-led experiential scenarios staged at OCAD University in Toronto, Canada. Using in-depth, semi-structured interviews and empathy mapping exercises, experiential scenario participants were asked to recall their experiences to the researcher. \n \nThe outcomes of this study are threefold: \n \nI. a descriptive account of participant experiences during experiential scenario encounters. This account of participant perceptions, emotional responses and the formation of understandings, may help sensitize designers to their audiences. \n \nII. an analysis of the participant experience during experiential scenario encounters. The analysis may help illuminate some of the unique merits and potential weaknesses of using experiential scenarios to explore possible futures. \n \nIII. an identification of aspects of the participant experience underserved in today's experiential scenarios. Designers may use this to enhance the participant experience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".