Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initialement centre sur ses domaines traditionnels (design industriel, de produits, design graphique), le design a, avec le temps, elargi sa base d’intervention a d’autres activites. D’abord aux services, puis a l’organisation elle-meme. Ainsi, depuis deja plusieurs annees, le concept de design management fait partie des pratiques observees sur le terrain et constitue un champ de recherche. Parler de design management pose plusieurs questions. D’abord des questions de definition et frontieres. Parle-t-on de gestion du design ? De gestion par le design ? De design de la gestion ? Ou commence et ou s’arrete le design management ? Des thematiques telles que le design de service, le design thinking lui sont-elles independantes ou imbriquees ? Comment porter des thematiques fondamentalement interdisciplinaires touchant a la fois aux sciences du design et aux sciences de la gestion dans des univers encore tres silotes tels que ceux de la recherche et de la pratique ? Ce dossier thematique, vise a faire le point sur les enjeux du design management. Tout d’abord, en revenant sur son historique, sur les concepts cles developpes a travers le temps du design management, sur l’evolution des pratiques et des discours. En dressant un portrait de la situation actuelle, de son champ d’activite, de son usage reel et des avancees theoriques et pratiques realisees. Finalement, en traitant du design management dans une optique prospective, afin de degager les pistes futures pour les praticiens et les chercheurs. Il s’agit donc, de realiser un portrait realiste du design management en 2018, annee de parution de ce numero 07.
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 | 0.024 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.099 | 0.026 |
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".