Recommendations to rebuild the body of feminist work in industrial design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.032 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.013 |
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".