Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper's aim is to discuss the impact of a set of tools specifically developed to facilitate goal alignment in multidisciplinary teams.The tools assist team members in building consensus on goals and defining priorities of complex design projects.The paper explains how the tools are operationalized within an engaging and intensive activity -a workshop context-and discusses the effects of both, the tools and the workshop, on real design situations and on the learning of future designers.The success of the workshop translates a valuable approach to the emergence of essential skills such as sensemaking, reasoning, negotiation and knowledge co-construction.The workshop activities highlight assets to generate common language and frame decision-making processes to address complex design situations.The activity flow allows for the gradual alignment of priorities and collective sensemaking leading to shared understanding of a systemic project vision.Reflecting on our observations and past implementations, this paper explicitly offers the theoretical arguments supporting our work and presents the pedagogical implementations of the tools in the context of a workshop in order to bridge from the learner's experiences to the learning outcome specific to collaborative design.
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 | 0.018 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".