MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1797530993 · doi:10.1108/imds-04-2015-0163

Modeling and quantifying uncertainty in the product design phase for effects of user preference changes

2015· article· en· W1797530993 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Afshari, Qingjin Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Management & Data Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceProduct designProcess (computing)Uncertainty analysisProduct lifecycleNew product developmentAnalyticsOriginalityIndustrial engineeringData miningEngineeringSimulationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to quantify external and internal uncertainties in product design process. The research addresses the measure of product future changes. Design/methodology/approach – Two methods are proposed to model and quantify uncertainty in the product life cycle. Changes of user preferences are considered as the external uncertainty. Changes stemming from dependencies between components are addressed as the internal uncertainty. Both methods use developed mechanisms to capture and treat changes of user preferences. An agent-based model is developed to simulate sociotechnical events in the product life cycle for the external uncertainty. An innovative application of Big Data Analytics (BDA) is proposed to evaluate the external and internal uncertainties in product design. The methods can identify the most affected product components under uncertainty. Findings – The results show that the proposed method could identify product changes during its life cycle, particularly using the proposed BDA method. Practical implications – It is essential for manufacturers in the competitive market to know their product changes under uncertainty. Proposed methods have potential to optimize design parameters in complex environments. Originality/value – This research bridges the gap of literature in the accurate estimation of uncertainty. The research integrates the change prediction and change transferring, applies data management methods innovatively, and utilizes the proposed methods practically.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.425
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.101 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial Management & Data SystemsSame topicProduct Development and CustomizationFrench-language works237,207