Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Designers work with people and for people, and the designers’ main objective is to transform people’s existing situations into better ones. This is not easy: it requires both disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge, and a will to do things well. Focusing on people makes the social sciences become a necessary support for design, and forces design to become an accountable profession, where decisions are based on reliable criteria, and where projects respond to important needs of society. In most design programmes today a simplistic conception of creativity keeps design as an easy and self-serving activity, where students are kept busy with formal/visual and technological concerns. Unfortunately studies of people are normally missing from design education, along with language and evaluation of performance. If design is to develop its full potential as a major contributor to society’s well-being, design education has to change into a rigorous, interdisciplinary and socially responsible activity.
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 | 0.040 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.006 |
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".