Стратегические направления развития современного дизайна в свете идей Саммита-2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В статье на основе материалов Саммита дизайна-2017 в Монреале (Канада) анализируются основные направления и цели развития дизайна, базовые концепты проектирования в различных сферах. С опорой на документы и доклады саммита показаны стратегические направления развития дизайна. Особое внимание уделяется комментариям к основным положениям Декларации дизайна, принятой на саммите. Работа выполнена в рамках фундаментальных НИР © Катаева Е. А., Быстрова Т. Ю., Малышева М. С., 2018 The article, based on materials of the Montreal Design Summit-2017, analyzes its key directions and developments for design while exploring basic design concepts in various fields. In addition, it discusses strategic directions for development in design based on the documents and reports from the summit. Particular attention is paid to comments on the main provisions of the Design Declaration adopted at the Summit.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.012 |
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".