MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039492649 · doi:10.3166/ria.18.619-645

Conception, modélisation géométrique et contraintes en CAO : une synthèse

2004· article· fr· W2039492649 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModPsychologyMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RESUME. Les logiciels de CAO ont pour perspective de devenir de veritables outils d’aide a la conception d’objets physiques. Mais la conception preliminaire reste un domaine de recherche largement ouvert. Cet article de synthese s’efforce de montrer qu’une approche par contraintes du processus de conception est incontournable pour atteindre ce but. La conception est vue ici comme un processus cyclique d’elaboration et de satisfaction de contraintes. Le modele conceptuel associe est un modele d’objets geometriques sous contraintes. Il est a plusieurs niveaux et integre des connaissances geometriques et non geometriques. L’article se poursuit par l’expose des differentes approches de la modelisation geometrique : parametrique, variationnelle, par features et declarative. Il se termine par une presentation rapide des methodes de resolution et de decomposition des systemes de contraintes abordees en CAO.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · 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