MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092385647 · doi:10.21606/drs.2016.255

Recommendations to rebuild the body of feminist work in industrial design

2016· article· en· W3092385647 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of DRS · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCrafts, Textile, and Design
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeminismIndustrial designRelevance (law)Feminist philosophyWork (physics)Feminist movementField (mathematics)SociologyEngineering ethicsTask (project management)Computer scienceGender studiesEngineeringPolitical scienceLawMechanical engineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feminist work exists in industrial design and contributes to society, the feminist movement and the industrial design field itself. Though much of the work dates from the 1980s and 1990s, which leaves the contemporary industrial design field without much feminist critique and intervention, and without the many contributions of this body of work. Thus, there is a need to rebuild the body of feminist work in industrial design. However, the feminist movement in industrial design is difficult to grasp and it’s hard to know how to move forward and contribute to this rebuilding. This paper provides recommendations to inform this complex task based on readings on the topic of feminism and a literature review on feminism in design. The recommendations touch-on how to address the limited presence of feminism in industrial design, the contemporary relevance of older feminist work in industrial design and how contemporary feminism could inform newer work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.155 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it