Design e Interdisciplinaridade: aproximações possíveis com a antropologia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of his interdisciplinary characteristic, Design establishes dialogues with areas of knowledge and/or disciplines. This paper, which is part of the Finish Task of the habilitation of Interior Design/ UEMG, aims to present one of these possible dialogues: establish connections between design and anthropology, especially around "make design" and "make anthropology". The idea is to realize how the anthropological method, that includes participant observation and, consequently, to see, participate, talk and listen to the "other" can also be present in the action of "doing design". Design projects are developed to meet a diversity of needs coming from various "others" of ours or from societies we do not belong to. In fact, "designing", whether in the design of an environment, a service, or a product also implies in this process of listening, talking, seeing and participating in the world to whom it is designed. In this way, it is perceived in this practice of the two disciplinary fields that there are points of approximation. It was from this that the need arose to process this reflection. To go father with the reflection, a bibliographical research was carried out to highlight the first considerations around the theme. In the first moment the text is dedicated to discuss the design, its definitions and its interdisciplinary characteristic. Next, an anthropological approach was sought to start the possible dialogues. The last topic deals with the design method, indicating how the greatest capillarity can be there to discuss the approximations between disciplines in the field of Applied Social Sciences: design and the area of Social Sciences: anthropology. At this moment of the research it is concluded that the field for reflections around the possible dialogues between design and anthropology is fertile and is configured as a field of research to be more explored.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".