Materials as Systems: The case of advanced textiles as key actors in a systemic change
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
<p dir="ltr">In this paper, we explore how the materials way of thinking paradigm, which has defined the development of the materials sciences field since the 1980s, created the premises for a conception of materials as systems. This paradigm impacts the design approaches and processes, but as we try to demonstrate in this text, the communities involved and their ecosystem(s). To better understand what is at stake when it comes to materials-driven inquiries in design, we question the nature of functions. Embracing a philosophical stance in relation to design, we aim to show how the switch from an ontological indexation of materials towards a more functionalist perspective created the premises of a paradigmatical change that understands materials as systems. Using advanced textiles as a case study, we will show how materials could become key actors in the attempts of systemic change where design discipline and industrious enterprises could work together towards more ecological perspectives and economies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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