Systematic Lifecycle Design for Sustainable Product Development
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
Sustainable product development (SPD) requires that product designs achieve minimal or zero environmental impacts, in addition to satisfying the traditional design criteria, such as product functionality, quality, features, costs, and time to market. Environmental evaluations must, therefore, be incorporated into the design stage. In this research, a product design process model is proposed that includes three design requirements, two design tasks, and three comprehensive assessment streams. The functional requirement is derived from the customers’ needs, reflecting the product's functional purpose; the environmental requirement reflects society's need for protecting natural resources and the environment; and, the economic requirement ensures the company's basic business goals. Accordingly, SPD aims to simultaneously carry out the two tasks of designing products’ physical and lifecycle structures. In the assessment phase of product design, three assessment streams, including lifecycle quality (LCQ) analysis, lifecycle assessment (LCA) and lifecycle cost (LCC), are conducted with respect to the functional, environmental, and economic evaluations. A process-based analysis concept is proposed for the analysis of LCQ, LCA, and LCC evaluations. A simplified LCA is used for the environmental evaluations. Detailed assessment techniques are also developed for effective design evaluations. A case study example is provided to illustrate the methods and models.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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