MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976292591 · doi:10.1115/detc2010-28218

Introducing Design Rigidity to Model Unexpected Disturbances in a DSM-Based Design Process

2010· article· en· W1976292591 on OpenAlexafffund
George Platanitis, Ahmad Barari, Remon Pop‐Iliev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
KeywordsProcess designComputer scienceIterative designFlexibility (engineering)Agile software developmentEngineering design processDesign processStructural rigidityRigidity (electromagnetism)Process (computing)Reliability engineeringSystems engineeringWork in processEngineeringScheduling (production processes)Software engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agile design engineering systems require flexible processes that can adapt rapidly for fast response to dynamic changes in the design requirements due to the market demands and/or internal or external constrains and limitations, without compromising the cost and quality of the design process and design process’ upstream activities, particularly the manufacturing and production processes. These changes in the design requirements can occur as unpredictable events at any time, delaying the convergence of the design process to a feasible solution. In this paper, the flexibility of design process versus an unpredicted event is studied and modeled using the notion of a dynamic index of rigidity for the design process. Using the Design Structure Matrix (DSM)-based definition of the sequence and technical relationship of design tasks, a dynamic response to an unexpected change in the design requirements and the additional necessary iterations in the design process are studied and modeled using the dynamic rigidity of the design process.

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)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.235
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProduct Development and CustomizationFrench-language works237,207