MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1853629060 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3753

THE CREATIVITY MATRIX: AN EXTENSION TO AXIOMATIC DESIGN

2011· article· en· W1853629060 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brad Crowell, Peter H. Gregson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxiomatic designCreativityAxiomComputer scienceEngineering design processExtension (predicate logic)Management scienceProcess (computing)Design processAxiomatic systemDesign matrixDesign educationSystems engineeringEngineeringMathematicsPsychologyManufacturing engineeringProgramming languageWork in processOperations managementBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Axiomatic Design helps a designer to make good design decisions. However, this addresses only one part of design. Prior to selecting a proposed design, the designer must synthesize options for further consideration. Within engineering design, creativity and expertise have been left to the competency of the designer and called the “art of engineering design”. To achieve a truly creative design process that addresses both analysis and synthesis, methods based on theories from Cognitive Psychology must be included. The resulting Creative Axiomatic Design process addresses both synthesis and analysis, enhancing creativity and expertise to inspire innovation and alternative perspectives on the design problem.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207