Illustrating, Annotating & Extending Design Qualities of Slow Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Slowness has emerged as a broad, yet rich lens to frame investigations into how temporality can be leveraged as a design material in creating computational objects. The proposal of slow technology is visionary, yet it is also abstract and there is a need to address how we design for slowness and temporality on theoretical and practical levels. The goal of this critical visualization is to build on a recent proposal of new design qualities for slow technology by illustrating and annotating them; and, subsequently unpacking how they are present in the conceptual and practical workings of six design artifacts. Our work visually illustrates key design qualities with attention to precise aspects of designed things to clarify and extend the theory of slow technology in a way that is difficult to achieve through verbal articulation alone. We conclude with a critical reflection on insights emerging across our research and interprets them to support future design research and practice. Note: as a critical visualization, our pictorial is available to view and download as a supplementary material attached to this DOI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".