Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is hardly controversial to argue for user involvement in the technology design process: the issue rather is the extent of that involvement and whether or not this is related to the kind of user. In particular, can young children play a meaningful role in design, and if so, what should it be? Several design methodologies advocate a range of roles for children within the design process; this article presents a new such methodology, Bonded Design. Essentially, Bonded Design assumes an intergenerational team comprising adult designers and young users working together to produce a low-tech prototype. This team employs a variety of design techniques?conducting a user needs’ assessment, evaluating existing technologies, brainstorming, discussing ideas as a group, prototyping (for example, through drawings), and consensus building?to achieve its goal. Bonded Design emerged in 2003 from a research study to investigate whether elementary school students (specifi- cally in grades three and six) could actively participate in designing Web portals. To accomplish this objective two intergenerational design teams were established, each including children alongside researchers, which produced two low-tech portal prototypes (Large, Beheshti, Nesset, & Bowler, 2004; Large, Nesset, Beheshti, & Bowler, 2006, 2007). These prototypes subsequently were converted into working portals that received high praise in their evaluations by elementary school students. Indeed, one of these portals, History Trek, is now operational on the Web, providing access to information in English and French on Canadian history (http://www.historytrek.ca).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".