MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979551898 · doi:10.1115/detc2009-87724

Application of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to Support Product In-Use Information Feedback

2009· article· en· W1979551898 on OpenAlexaff
Grant McSorley, Greg Huet, Stephen Culley, Clément Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 8: 14th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 6th Symposium on International Design and Design Education; 21st International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Parts A and B · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct lifecycleProduct managementReuseProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceService (business)New product developmentProduct engineeringProcess managementProduct designProcess (computing)Product design specificationOrder (exchange)Risk analysis (engineering)Systems engineeringEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to their increasing responsibility for the total lifecycle costs associated with their products, manufacturers are investing increasingly more efforts in their reduction. One way in which this can be achieved is through the elimination at the design stage of possible in-service issues. This can be supported through the feedback of product in-use information obtained from testing, prototyping and in-service lifecycle stages towards the earlier stages of the development process. In order to facilitate the feedback of this information to design, the idea of complimentary product structures is introduced. The relationships between these structures provide a link between product information across the various lifecycle stages. The similarities between the product structure and the FMEA structure are also examined. As the FMEA organizes its information on a component basis, it is suggested that it provides an adequate basis for the organization of the product in-use information in order to facilitate its association with the product structure. Based on these ideas, a full framework for the feedback and reuse of product in-use information is described.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 8: 14th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 6th Symposium on International Design and Design Education; 21st International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Parts A and BSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207