MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034885336 · doi:10.1115/1.4001534

Methodical Extensions for Decomposition of Matrix-Based Design Problems

2010· article· en· W2034885336 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanical Design · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDependency (UML)Extension (predicate logic)DecompositionComputer scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)Mathematical optimizationAlgorithmHeuristicMatrix decompositionBinary numberTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The two-phase method is a matrix-based approach for system decomposition, in which a system is represented by a rectangular matrix to capture dependency relationships of two sets of system elements. While the two-phase method has its own advantages in problem decomposition, this paper focuses on two methodical extensions to improve the method’s capability. The first extension is termed nonbinary dependency analysis, which can handle nonbinary dependency information, in addition to just binary information, of the model. This extension is based on the formal analysis of a resemblance coefficient to quantify the couplings among the model’s elements. The second extension is termed heuristic partitioning analysis, which allows the method to search for a reasonably good decomposition solution with less computing effort. This extension can be viewed as an alternative to the original partitioning approach that uses an enumerative approach to search for an optimal solution. At the end, the relief valve redesign example is applied to illustrate and justify the newly developed method components.

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)0.006
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanical DesignSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207