MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019258268 · doi:10.1115/detc2013-13415

An Agent-Based Method to Investigate Customers’ Preference in Product Lifecycle

2013· article· en· W2019258268 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Afshari, Qingjin Peng, Peihua Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 4: 18th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 2013 ASME/IEEE International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality Function Deployment in Product Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality function deploymentProduct lifecycleProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceProduct managementNew product developmentProduct design specificationQuality (philosophy)PreferenceVoice of the customerProduct designProcess managementSystems engineeringBusinessEngineeringMarketingService qualityCustomer retentionService (business)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumer requirements for products vary dynamically based on the change of technologies, social influence, individual taste, etc. A sustainable product should meet customer requirements in its lifecycle. Different methods and techniques have been proposed to find possible changes of product needs or customers’ preferences. This paper introduces an agent-based technique to address the change of product requirements. Major contribution of the proposed method is to embed customers’ preference in the analysis of product performance using agent interactions. Using the combination of Quality Function Deployment (QFD), agent-based modeling and data mining methods, customers’ preference trends related to elements and functions of product are simulated. The prediction period is flexible based on estimated product lifecycle. The proposed method is compared with other techniques in a case study.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 4: 18th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 2013 ASME/IEEE International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and ApplicationsSame topicQuality Function Deployment in Product DesignFrench-language works237,207