Craft In Transition: Integrating Digital Fabrication with Traditional Ceramics in Canadian Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores how digital fabrication—specifically 3D clay printing—shapes the meaning and practice of craftsmanship in Canadian ceramic design. The study investigates how digital tools interact with traditional processes and how emerging designers engage with this hybrid way of making. Emphasizing material knowledge, tactile experience, and authorship, it examines the evolving role of the maker in a digitally mediated environment. Using a practice-led approach—including autoethnographic reflection, object reconstruction, and semi-structured interviews—the study found that digital fabrication reframes rather than replaces traditional craft knowledge. While 3D printing offers precision and efficiency, it also requires material sensitivity and iterative problem-solving. Findings show that craftsmanship now involves a blend of physical and digital skills, shaped through experimentation, reflection, and collaboration. This hybrid practice opens new pathways for redefining craft in design education and practice. Keywords: 3D Clay Printing, Craftsmanship, Digital Fabrication, Canadian Ceramics, Material Knowledge, Hybrid Practice
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".