Perspectives on Research Assessment in Architecture, Music and the Arts. Discussing Doctorateness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in the creative fields of architecture, design, music and the arts has experienced dynamic development for over two decades. The research in these practice and arts based fields has become increasingly mature, but has also led to various discussions on what constitutes doctoral proficiency in these fields. The term ‘doctorateness’ is often used when referring to the assessment of the production of doctoral research and the research competence of research students, but in architecture and the arts the concept of doctorateness has not yet attained a clearly articulated definition. The assessment of quality has been practiced by way of supervising, mentoring and the evaluation of dissertations, but much less discussed.\n\nThis book offers perspectives on how to qualify and assess research in architecture, music and the arts. It creates a broader arena for discussion on doctorateness by establishing a framework for its application to creative fields. The book is grouped into three sections and includes contributions from international experts in the various fields, working in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK. The first section offers general frameworks for further conceptualising doctorateness in the fields in question. It is followed by a section that describes and discusses various experiences, concerns and visions on the production and assessment of doctoral research reporting from doctoral programmes in different stages of development. The third section includes future-oriented perspectives on knowledge-building processes, and asks how the ongoing, profound changes in academia could influence the concept of quality in both doctoral process and product. \n\nThe book presents different perspectives on research assessment practices and developments of relevant criteria in the practice-based and creative fields of architecture and the arts. The contributions propose ways of framing this issue conceptually, show the need for awareness of the specific context and tradition programmes develop and give proposals for various potential trajectories for the future.\n
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 | 0.051 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".