In-between: positioning interior design education at Université de Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the Université de Montréal’s interior design program echoes the in-betweenness and ambiguous qualities of the interior design discipline itself. By exploring the program’s founding and evolution, this article highlights how the specific institutional and cultural context of the Université de Montréal has fostered productive ambiguities that allow its graduates to critically position themselves and their practices within North American and global frameworks. The program’s oscillation between architecture and industrial design reflects the broader disciplinary tensions that have shaped interior design. Assumptions about the scope and focus of each field continue to influence how their interrelations are perceived. Ongoing debates around the terms “interior design” and “interior architecture” further underscore the discipline’s definitional fluidity, particularly salient in Montréal’s bilingual and bicultural environment. As one of only two francophone university-based interior design programs in North America, the program’s unique status has significantly influenced its development. From its inception, educators were required to clearly articulate how its degrees would differ from existing ones, while also seizing opportunities for collaboration with technical institutions and other academic partners.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".