MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992401952 · doi:10.1177/1063293x13516328

A holistic approach to concurrent engineering and its application to robotics

2013· article· en· W1992401952 on OpenAlexaff
Robin Chhabra, Bahman Emami

Bibliographic record

VenueConcurrent Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachFuzzy logicConcurrent engineeringProcess (computing)Systems engineeringComputer scienceMultidisciplinary design optimizationRoboticsEngineering design processEngineeringArtificial intelligenceManagement scienceSoftware engineeringHuman–computer interactionRobotEngineering managementProcess managementOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article details a holistic concurrent design framework, based on fuzzy logic, which is suitable for multidisciplinary systems. The methodology attempts to enhance communication and collaboration between different disciplines through introducing the universal notion of satisfaction and expressing the holistic behavior of multidisciplinary systems using the notion of energy. Throughout the design process, it uses fuzzy logic to formalize subjective aspects of design including the impact of the designer’s attitude, resulting in the simplification of the multi-objective constrained optimization process. In the final phase, the methodology adjusts the designer’s subjective attitude based on a holistic system performance by utilizing an energy-based model of multidisciplinary systems. The efficiency of the resulting design framework is illustrated by improving the design of a 5-degree-of-freedom industrial robot manipulator.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcurrent EngineeringSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207