Public design and social innovation: Learning from applied research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design approach is increasingly adopted as a creative process to create innovation in organization. The process is based on the holistic way designers apprehend problems. Even though the design approach is sensitive to human experiences, its contribution in generating innovation is uncertain. In the light of a literature review on how design for social innovation should be conducted, we propose to revisit research projects in public and social contexts undertaken by the authors in the last ten years. This paper hopes to shed light on what is recommended in literature and on what really happens in the practice of public design projects. Over the years, the authors produced a considerable amount of design research centered on the implantation of public infrastructures in urban and regional landscapes. Sometimes, these research projects caused challenges for the nearby populations as well as for the general public in terms of social acceptability issues. This paper proposes a first critical observation of Quebec’s public design research contexts through the analysis of three types of design research projects: a thesis, an applied research on public infrastructures for a public organization and an academic research financed by public funds on public infrastructures.
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 | 0.043 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".