MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Critical by design: Fostering responsible innovation with critical design methods

2021· article· en· W4200044743 on OpenAlexaff
Marcel O’Gorman, Jason Lajoie, Zach Pearl

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical designWorkflowCritical reflectionReflection (computer programming)Computer scienceSpace (punctuation)Management scienceKey (lock)Knowledge managementCritical thinkingEngineering ethicsEngineering managementEngineeringSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given, as follows. A complete record of the panel discussion was not made available for publication as part of the conference proceedings. Design theorist Matt Malpas suggests that critical design is “less about problem solving and more about problem finding.” Rather than offering solutions or efficiencies, critical designers develop projects that provide time and space to reflect on specific issues, most often problems related to technological progress. This creative practice can be integrated into the design workflow as a way of exploring and mitigating the potential social and environmental impacts of technological innovations. In this 90-minute workshop, participants will be introduced to critical design methods and apply them in small group projects to create speculative scenarios and objects-to-think-with that promote reflection on key topics in responsible innovation. The workshop will provide participants with skills that can be applied in their own research, design and innovation contexts.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207