MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1942903944 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3884

ON THE FUNCTION-BEHAVIOR-STRUCTURE MODEL FOR DESIGN

2011· article· en· W1942903944 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Wenjun Zhang, Yingzi Lin, Niraj Sinha

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConfusionFunction (biology)Computer scienceAsk priceEpistemologyManagement sciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyEngineeringEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many proposals regarding the design model which are related to such notions as function, behavior, and structure. They have created some confusion about and debates on which one should be the most appropriate one. Naturally, a question one may ask is whether they are actually the same thing but with different names or whether they have different scopes of applications for different design problems. In this paper, we evaluate these proposals and attempt to clean up the confusion and comment on the debates. As a result, we are able to conclude a unified and general one and to show how it can be shaped into specific ones, proposed by others in literature, which are applicable to specific design problems.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.021
Scholarly communication0.0080.015
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations49
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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