A case study on action research: Barri Gòtic Barcelona
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Design Degree program at Elisava, Barcelona School of Design and Engineering, includes tools and mechanisms to focus students on the users, the social context and communication. The idea behind this is that greater density should be sought in the projects and a fabric of relationships should be generated in a social and geographical environment ranging from the most local to the most global. \n \nAs part of its “Products, context and user” subject, Elisava planned action research during the 2010-11 academic year between a group of graphic design students and the members of the 'Asociación de vecinos del barri Gòtic' (AVVBG or Gothic Quarter Community Association), the Gothic Quarter being the district of Barcelona where the School is situated. As the AVVBG has few members, it considered the need to develop new communicative strategies. The teachers provided the students with the traditional social science methods (documentary sources, participant observation, indepth interviews) with two goals: the first, that they might become deeply aware of the district's social reality, its relationship with the rest of the city and the true needs of the AVVBG (diagnosis); and the second, to establish bonds with the members of the AVVBG that would lead to starting spaces for reflection, joint creation and joint participation in designing the association’s new communication strategies. The changes between the students' first proposal made with the typical conventional project methodology, and the following, after the action research and the users, students and tutors' reply, give a good account of the values and challenges of this methodology and enable design discipline self reflection.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".