MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023918310 · doi:10.1115/1.1683825

Mathematical Foundation for Modeling Conceptual Design Sketches1

2004· article· en· W2023918310 on OpenAlexaff
Yong Zeng, Ajit Pardasani, John Dickinson, Z. Li, and H. Antunes, Vima Gupta, D. Baulier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSketchComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Interpretation (philosophy)Mathematical structureDimension (graph theory)Set (abstract data type)Process (computing)Foundation (evidence)Conceptual designMathematical modelTheoretical computer scienceEngineering drawingManagement scienceAlgorithmMathematicsProgramming languageEngineeringHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to establish a mathematical foundation for modeling free-hand design sketches throughout the conceptual design process. Both experimental and theoretical approaches are used. In using the experimental approach, one case study from a book and one case study from an automobile assembly system manufacturer are used to illustrate the characteristics of design sketches. These characteristics provide the requirements for models of sketch representation. In using the theoretical approach, a mathematical structure of design sketches is established. This mathematical structure can naturally and logically model the evolving sketches generated in the design process, through integrating the strengths of set theory and mereology. In addition to the formal representation of design sketches, the mathematical model provides a logical foundation for formally designing sketch interpretation algorithms. An algorithmic structure of three-dimension reconstruction from two-dimension line drawing is derived using this mathematical model.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computing and Information Science in EngineeringSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207