Transition and Social Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Against the background of environmental problems arising from the growing extraction of natural resources and resource depletion, achieving a sustainable development is an indispensable challenge in the twenty-first century. In this article we want to show how socio-technical and product-service innovations can change social practices – the routine doings in everyday life – and, thus, support transition of socio-technical systems. We introduce theoretical considerations on how social practice theories and the framework of the Multi-Level Perspective in transition research can be linked to better understand transition processes from a micro-macro-link perspective. We then present cases based on desk research in the field of practices in bathing, heating and nutrition to show how these have changed over the past decades. Building on this, examples of concepts for sustainable product-service-design in these areas are introduced as leverage points to change social practices in everyday life. These have been developed in research projects or design student seminar works, respectively. We argue that this implies sustainable product-service-systems should be developed in a user- and actor-integrated framework, such as Sustainable LivingLabs. The integration of users and other stakeholders into participatory co-creation processes enables tailored solutions that take actual routines and dependencies seriously into account.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".