MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978429834 · doi:10.1142/s0219686704000399

DIFFERENT APPROACHES IN MULTIPLE-CRITERIA OPTIMIZATION USING THE TAGUCHI METHOD: A CASE STUDY IN A COLD HEADING PROCESS

2004· article· en· W1978429834 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaguchi methodsHeading (navigation)Process (computing)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real life engineering problems usually require the satisfaction of different, potentially conflicting criteria. Design optimization, on the other hand, based on the conventional Taguchi method cannot accommodate more than one response. However, by the use of the overall evaluation criterion approach, the method can be applied to multiple-criteria optimization problems. This paper presents the use of different utility function methods as well as a multiple attribute decision-making model in the multiple-criteria optimization of a cold heading process. Different aspects of each method are discussed and compared.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.247 · 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