MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041815803 · doi:10.1115/detc2008-49542

A Unified Framework for Decomposition of Design Structure Matrix and Domain Mapping Matrix

2008· article· en· W2041815803 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Li, Li Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesign structure matrixComputer scienceDecompositionDependency (UML)Context (archaeology)Domain (mathematical analysis)WorkflowMatrix (chemical analysis)Matrix decompositionTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmSoftware engineeringMathematicsSystems engineeringEngineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In literature, design structure matrix (DSM), which is a square matrix, has been widely used to address single-domain dependency relationships (e.g., product architecture, process workflow, and organization structure). To extend the DSM efforts, a rectangular matrix becomes a logical format to capture and analyze cross-domain dependency relationships, namely, domain mapping matrix (DMM) [1]. In this context, this paper proposes a unified framework for decomposition of DSM and DMM. The unified framework consists of four methodological phases to offer the functions of DSM clustering, DSM sequencing, and DMM decomposition. To support the development of this framework, various decomposition-related techniques from applied mathematics and engineering design are reviewed. Three matrix examples have been used to illustrate the framework’s applicability.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProduct Development and CustomizationFrench-language works237,207