Week 1 of 12 — Phase I, Define

What Counts as a Sandwich?

Is the boundary defined by shape, materials, function, or use?

Commencing22 February 2027ArtefactClassification Field Note

Open the lecture deck

Test station 01

The apparatus.

Classification deskChoose the criterion. The boundary moves, and so does what it excludes.
Filled rolladmittedTriple-deckeradmittedWrapexcludedOne specimen falls outside the boundary this criterion draws.
Reading 01 — EnclosureAdmits the filled roll. Excludes the open-faced assembly, which has no upper layer to enclose with.
Filled rolladmittedTriple-deckeradmittedWrapexcludedOne specimen falls outside the boundary this criterion draws.
Reading 02 — Two outer layersAdmits the triple-decker. Excludes the wrap, whose single layer is folded rather than paired.
Filled rolladmittedTriple-deckeradmittedWrapadmittedThe criterion admits all three — and much else besides.
Reading 03 — Held in the handAdmits the wrap and the open-faced assembly. Admits a great many things nobody would call a sandwich.

Structural question — is the boundary defined by shape, materials, function, or use?

The course needs a working definition before it can test anything, and the definition has to survive contact with awkward specimens. This week builds one, then attacks it.

The classification problem

Every criterion you might reach for draws a boundary somewhere inconvenient. A definition by enclosure admits a filled roll and excludes an open-faced assembly. A definition by count of outer layers admits a triple-decker and excludes a wrap. A definition by use — held in the hand, eaten without cutlery — admits things no other criterion does.

None of these is correct. What matters for the rest of the semester is that you can say which criterion you are using and what it costs you, because the criterion determines which failures are even visible. A definition that excludes the wrap cannot describe how a wrap fails.

Investigation

Work through a branching classifier against a set of disputed specimens: a filled roll, an open-faced assembly, a wrap, a two-layer stack cut through the diagonal, and one specimen of your own choosing. For each, record the criterion that decides it and the first criterion that would reverse the decision.

Use whichever participation route suits you: a physical specimen, a non-food analogue, or the supplied evidence pack. All three answer the same question.

Failure condition

A classification fails here when it cannot be applied by a second person to the same specimen and reach the same result. Ambiguity is the failure mode, and it is the one you are looking for.

What leaves the session

A Classification Field Note: one annotated specimen, the criterion applied, the boundary it draws, and one counterexample that the criterion handles badly. This is the first entry in the evidence trail the Sandwich Field Log assesses.

Where this week's evidence goes

Observe — 15%

Sandwich Field Log

Record four specimens, separating what was observed from what was inferred.

Due 12 March 2027, end of Week 3

The Classification Field Note this week produces is evidence for that submission. The recording sheet for it, and the standard it is judged against, are in the Field Manual.

Any activity here can be completed with a physical specimen, a non-food analogue, or the supplied evidence pack — see policies and participation.

Week navigation

SLOP2895 / week 01 / classification field note