In-Service Information for Aeroengine Designers: A Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the primordial aspects of the integrated product service paradigm is efficient flow and sharing of information between the stakeholders during the entire life of a product. This paper presents an improved understanding of the nature of the product in-use information required by aircraft design engineers. The findings are based on a vast survey which expands on a previous qualitative study reported in the literature. The results presented here are therefore a much needed quantitative measure of the in-service information requirements at the aircraft design stage. The survey has helped the authors to depict a system of in-service information feedback to designers which can be qualified as informal in nature, producing inefficient or frustrating results. Indeed, the feedback process is established mainly through personal contacts and does not necessarily ensure that appropriate, complete information is systematically available in a timely manner for designers. On the bright side, the responses from the participants consolidate the belief that the required information does exist within heterogeneous databases and that designers recognize the importance of in-service information to their work. A formalized in-service information feedback process is therefore seen as one of the strategic mechanisms that needs to be implemented to ensure proper product development and service integration.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it