MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054460326 · doi:10.1142/s0219686709001638

SOFTWARE FRAMEWORK FOR THE APPROACH: COMPUTER AIDED SAFETY INTEGRATION IN DESIGN PROCESS (CASID)

2009· article· en· W2054460326 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnified Modeling LanguageComputer scienceProcess (computing)Software engineeringSoftwareSystems engineeringSystem integrationEngineeringDatabaseProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, safety is often integrated at too late a stage in the design process of complex systems, such as machines or production lines. In most cases, this integration is made on an individual basis without any systematic method. Moreover, there are very few computer-aided software packages that allow the integration of safety aspects into the design process. In this paper, we present propositions of a model working situation using (UML). 1 This model is implemented by prototype software called Computer Aided Safety Integration in Design process (CASID). The CASID approach is founded on a database in which all previous data generated by the designer using CASID is stored; furthermore, the software allows communication between designers in order to solve safety problems.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.227 · 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