MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1740871020 · doi:10.3233/jid-2001-5207

ATTRIBUTE-BASED DESIGN DESCRIPTION SYSTEM IN DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURABILITY AND ASSEMBLY

2001· article· en· W1740871020 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Srinivas Paluri, John Gershenson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrated Design and Process Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesign for manufacturabilityComputer scienceSystems engineeringEngineeringEngineering drawingManufacturing engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Present computer-aided design (CAD) systems, intentionally developed as detail oriented designing tools, do not fully support the activities at the early stage of product development. CAD systems, which require a detailed level of design, prohibit the creative and free expression of a design idea. The solution to the limitations of present CAD systems is to fully utilize the graphical ability of current computer systems to represent a design with an easily understood design description in the conceptual design stage. We have developed a computerized product development tool to support designing activities in the conceptual design phase. The attribute-based design description system (ADDS) is a feature-based system that incorporates life-cycle engineering analysis and solid modeling to form an integrated CAD system. It provides a simple design representation interface and assembly modeling, evaluates the design for life-cycle engineering issues, and exports the design to AutoCAD as a solid model with flexible information input requirements. The research thus provides a starting point to the development of CAD systems that support productivity in the conceptual design stage. ADDS has been validated by describing three different design examples of power transmission systems in ADDS and exporting them to AutoCAD. This paper examines the benefits of applying a specification driven approach and presents a framework for environments that can support the related design activities. The Design Analysis and Simulation Environment (DASE) based upon this framework has been successfully implemented through a joint initiative between Bell Canada and McGill University.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.011

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Integrated Design and Process ScienceSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207