Design, Science et Technologie : quels modèles et idéauxtypes pour la recherche en science du design ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si la Science et le Design semblent singulièrement identifiés et discutés comme disciplines fondamentales de la recherche en science du design (RSD), la Technologie y tient soit un rôle plus ténu ou n’est pas distinguée du Design. La cohésion et la cohérence entre les éléments de cette trialectique ne semblent pas avoir fait l’objet d’un examen approfondi dans les travaux théoriques en science du design (SD) en management et en systèmes d’information (SI). Pour clarifier la cohésion et la cohérence de cette trialectique que forment la Science, la Technologie et le Design, cet article propose un modèle de RSD qui repose sur l’identification et la distinction des trois disciplines fondamentales que sont le Design, la Technologie et la Science et de leur matrice disciplinaire respective. Cet article vise aussi à construire et à illustrer par le truchement d’exemples tirés d’articles scientifiques trois idéauxtypes de RSD que sont les configurations entre ces trois disciplines fondamentales : la recherche artefactuelle ; la recherche technologique ; et la recherche artefactuelle ET technologique.
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 | 0.026 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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; 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".