Design Comes Out of Industry. New Critical Approaches for Design in the Economy of Post-Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the post-industrial era is investing in immaterial assets of knowledge, the labour of the mind comes to be the primary workforce capable of generating value. The category post-industrial does not get rid of industry itself, on the contrary, it refers to activities connected to the service industry, involving a knowledge based workforce (Bell, 1973; Rifkin, 2001; Gorz, 2003). \nThe paper aims at understanding the shift brought by the democratization/digitalization of the tools of project and the technologies of production, which is leading to a redefinition of the approaches to education and its pedagogical goals (Imbesi, 2008; Levy, 1999). Then, the paper strives on the resulting blurring of disciplinary borders which, added to the multiplication of the Schools of Design in any part of the world, makes design become a “mass profession” for the management of processes rather than products (Imbesi, 2007). \nDesign comes out of industry to state its presence in every social and aesthetic event. The new professional figure coming ahead has gone forward the notions of production and reproduction, referring to the serial products of the industrial era elaborated from raw material, to meet the notion of postproduction as the result of activities reworking preexisting products (Borriaud, 2002; Imbesi, 2009). \nThrough a theory-based and design-based approach, the contribution aims at focusing the revision of the social role of project and its education towards innovation. \nThe paper will trace the transdisciplinary/multidimensional critical matters coming from a research and didactic experience at Carleton University in Ottawa (Canada) displaying the social and anthropological issues connected with the transformation of the role of designer along with the rise of new technologies and the society of knowledge.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".