Investigating the Philosophical Basis of "Design" as a Technological Activity, considering the implicit meanings in the intertextual concept of "Techne"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to "Design" theorists, ambiguity in essence and meaning has posed various challenges to this scientific field, and since a lack of understanding of the functions and philosophical foundations of a scientific field makes it impossible to realize the appropriate or complete version of that field, design researchers have focused on expanding their understanding of the field mentioned above. This descriptive-analytical study focuses on the theoretical field of "design philosophy" and will be valuable for furthering the discussion on design's essence. Concerning this, this research will address the following questions: "What are the philosophical underpinnings of the act of design as a technological action?" and "How can the act of design be discussed in terms of the various implications of the notion of Techne?". To answer these questions, we will first examine the discussions over the concept of "design" in the sphere of "philosophy of technology" as well as the various implications of the multidimensional concept of Techne (the Greek root word for technology). The data and findings will next be analyzed, interpreted, and integrated. The study's achievements include addressing the philosophical foundations of design as a sub-field of technology, epistemology, and methodology, and focusing on the implications of design based on the related concepts of Techne, such as Aesthetic, Logos, Mythos, Metis, Episteme, and Poiesis, for use in future studies of the science and philosophy of design.
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 | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".