Towards patterns of responsible consumption and production: an exploration of do-it-yourself practitioners through motivations, conceptions, and fabrication processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defined as a way for practitioners to conceive and fabricate products by and for themselves, do-it-yourself (DIY) has recently garnered interest as a practice that may encourage patterns of responsible consumption and production (RCP). However, conceptualising the DIY practice as one that reduces resources, energy and waste is still debated among the scientific community as it may require the use of new materials and technologies with higher energy consumption. In this context, this study has the following objectives: 1) to explore practitioners' environmental, social and ethical motivations to DIY; and 2) to document their DIY process. To this purpose, 37 semi-structured interviews were conducted with practitioners from Quebec, Canada. Based on the findings, three personas were developed to categorise practitioners and examine their profile types. Finally, this paper proposes a definition of responsible DIY to guide practitioners towards patterns of RCP in their practise of DIY.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".