MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399494793 · doi:10.1177/14780771241260854

Designing with sense: A critical review and proposal for enhanced design space exploration in generative design

2024· review· en· W4399494793 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Architectural Computing · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGenerative DesignFormative assessmentComputer scienceSpace (punctuation)Generative grammarHuman–computer interactionDomain (mathematical analysis)Systems engineeringFocus (optics)Interface (matter)Software engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designers in the built-environment disciplines increasingly solve problems using generative design methods, which promise novel and performant solutions to design problems but produce large design spaces that are challenging to explore. Design Space Exploration (DSE) interfaces have been used to understand, refine and narrow design spaces. Still, a critical analysis of current DSE interfaces shows a gap between their features and how designers explore and make decisions. We conducted a design study with domain experts to develop a DSE interface (DesignSense) that tightly integrates and adds to several features found separately in current DSE systems. We present a formative focus group evaluation, which suggested more areas for improvement and highlighted the need to distinguish designers from scientists as two user groups of DSE systems with varying needs, amongst other findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it