MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045219456 · doi:10.1504/ijde.2009.030179

A liaison model for disassembly-reassembly product ecodesign

2009· article· en· W2045219456 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian Mascle, Ke Xing

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcodesignEngineeringProduct (mathematics)Fuzzy logicAutomationCADProduct modelManufacturing engineeringSystems engineeringService (business)Engineering drawingIndustrial engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringSoftware engineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on non-destructive disassembly for mechanical products as part of environment friendly manufacturing. An original approach using a clustering method for assembly and the introduction of a mathematical model, describing the fuzzy liaisons between the components, allow us to design the product for disassembly, service, recycling, upgrading and assembly. They also facilitate the determination of the problems related to the automation of assembly and disassembly sequences generation. To do so, the modelling of functional liaisons between parts helps to distinguish a simple contact from an attachment and subsets from subassemblies. Liaisons between components are described by matrices of fuzzy half degrees of liaison. The virtual locking liaisons could be extracted automatically from a B-rep model of a mechanical product on CAD and attachment liaisons are deduced from a fuzzy evaluation of their strength and condition changes.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design EngineeringSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207