MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1875552029 · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35494-1_15

Towards a Logical Framework for Engineering Design Processes

2002· book-chapter· en· W1875552029 on OpenAlexaff
Filippo A. Salustri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSketchComputer scienceTask (project management)Systems engineeringArchitectureEngineering design processSoftware engineeringManagement scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on a new aspect of the author’s ongoing research to develop a logical framework for engineering design processes. Since this is a new project, the goal of this paper is to describe the nature of the problem being studied, to sketch the architecture of the system being developed to address it, and to identify various areas of application. Reasoning about design processes is found to be a task essentially about reasoning about product knowledge. A recently developed logic, called ALX3, has been found to provide all the basic mechanisms for representing design processes. ADPM will extend ALX3 to support directly the kinds of knowledge needed for design processes to occur. Some examples from the area of automotive engineering are used to indicate some of ADPM’s benefits in practical environments.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207