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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fourth special issue of FormAkademisk on the theme of Systemic Design features articles from RSD5 2016 held at OCADU, Toronto October 13 to 15. The themes of these five full papers are covering development of the design field at large, methodology development and practice of learning and education. The other main thread in this issue is sustainability, circular economy and urban co living strategies.
 The special issue follows after the publication of the RSD5 proceedings , containing videos, abstracts and working papers from the conference. In these full papers the themes form the presentations and working papers are developed further. The proceedings are found at:
 https://systemic-design.net/rsd-symposia/rsd5-2016/
 Parallel to this special issue a Springer Book is published with Peter Jones as editor presenting an additional set of selected papers.
 Following the three former special issues it is fair to state that systemic design has developed beyond the initial point where it was still unclear what the notion of Systemic Design was covering and how it should be developed. The current issue demonstrates that systemic design has a wide reach and depth in its explorations.
 Cover image by Elisabeth Bjørndal Skjelten.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it