DRAFTS:3 : Communicating knowledge through design research artefacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DRAFTS:3 invited more than 80 researchers and designers to discuss the role of artefacts in research and design activities within disciplines such as fashion, textile, and interaction design. Specific to the third iteration of DRAFTS, researchers and designers contributed material and immaterial artefacts to the exhibition with the aim of framing discussions around the role of artefacts in communicating knowledge. The various schools of thought that the participating researchers and designers follow, allowed for a multifaceted dialogue to emerge, suggesting various approaches to communicating knowledge through design research artefacts. This multifaceted dialogue was expressed through three events across two venues: A ten-day research exhibition was held at designtransfer in an international collaboration between the Berlin University of the Arts, Germany and the University of Borås, Sweden. 45 design researchers from various academic institutions across Canada, Germany, Iran, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Romania Sweden, and the United Kingdom showcased their work together. A symposium was held at designtransfer that invited all participating exhibitors to present and discuss their perspective on the role of artefacts in communicating knowledge in relation to their exhibited projects. The dialogue that emerged was further deepened by two keynote presentations, which were held by Sarah Kettley, Professor of Material and Design Innovation at University of Edinburgh, Scotland and Daniëlle Bruggeman, Professor of Fashion at ArtEZ - University of the Arts in Arnhem, the Netherlands. A one-day pop-up exhibition was held at the Berlin Open Lab that featured the work of 36 students enrolled at various academic institutions in MA Fashion Design, MA Textile Design, MA Costume Design, MA Product Design, MA Design & Computation, MA Spiel & Objekt, MS Physics, and BA Fashion Design to exhibit their projects in the context of the DRAFTS:3 theme. Together, these events suggested various perspectives on questions relevant to DRAFTS:3: What is an artefact? What roles do artefacts play in design practices and research? How do design practitioners and researchers communicate ideas and knowledge through artefacts? What are the possibilities and challenges of artefacts when communicating ideas and knowledge? What do design practitioners and researchers need to mind for framing the role of the artefact in this context? All contributors to the three events suggest varying perspectives to these questions on the following pages. These perspectives may show similarities to one another, or challenge each other. Together, they are a time stamp of evolving perspectives on the role of artefacts in practicing and communicating design and design research.
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 | 0.041 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.014 |
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".