Manifestations of everyday design: Guiding goals and motivations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between goals, materials and competences in the practice of everyday design. Appropriations and creative uses of design artifacts are often reported in terms of outcomes and goals; however, we observe a gap in understanding how materials, tools, and competences are also involved in these processes. We conduct a multiple case study of three groups of everyday designers: families, hobbyist jewelers, and steampunk enthusiasts. We provide a description of the aspects of meaning, materials, and competences, as well as how they are interrelated, for each case. Our findings show that amongst these three aspects of the practice of everyday designers, it is the meaning of the practice that acts as the strongest motivator for practitioners. Materials, tools, and competences are hence largely determined accordingly. The implications of this study propose ways to design for practices with different types of meaning: foundational, aesthetic, and aspirational goals.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it