MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485386517 · doi:10.1109/tem.2015.2427844

Risk Propagation Through a Platform: The Failure Risk Perspective on Platform Sharing

2015· article· en· W1485386517 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education, Science and TechnologyNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Perspective (graphical)Variety (cybernetics)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Product (mathematics)Risk managementReliability engineeringEngineeringBusinessArtificial intelligenceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A product platform is a set of subsystems and interfaces that are commonly shared by a variety of products. Although platform sharing is considered an effective means of cost saving, it also runs the risk of propagating a particular failure across multiple products when the platform is defectively designed. Thus, sharing a common platform effectively can amplify the risk of incurring a large number of failures. In this paper, we formulate a quantitative model for assessing amplified failure risk. Our analysis shows an unexpected result that the platform risk increases as we become more assured of our design capability; i.e, when a defective design rarely happens, the magnitude of risk amplification becomes much larger. The numerical investigation of a platform planning case sheds light on the importance of risk assessment in determining the level of commonality in designing a platform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it