Moana (Pacific) Expressions of Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a reflection on an attempt to create a space of flux through the concepts of positionality, vā and talanoa within the design academy. This was presented as an academic course, originally intended to address a gap in established learning, and to make space for intergenerational knowledge systems that were originally being shared outside of the studio (shared at the knee, through office hours, and in passing conversations). This sharing led to key questions regarding how we (re)craft our ways through our practices and what cultural conditions are needed to enable safe design and cultural production. Five students enrolled in the course and are featured as co-authors in this article. They whakapapa as Tangata whenua (Māori, people of the land) or Tagata o le Moana (specifically Sāmoan). They are enrolled in a range of design disciplines such as spatial design, fashion design, and concept design. Classes were held once a week over a 12- week semester period. These in-person classes involved reflecting and re-presenting our positional contexts, a sharing and setting of kai, hikoi to gallery exhibitions featuring Māori and Pacific art practitioners at an institutional level and a community level, alongside the sharing of scholarship developed on the concepts of vā and talanoa, while coming back to ourselves and our familial, generational social settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".