MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068014134 · doi:10.1115/detc2010-29005

A Product Lifecycle Management Framework to Support the Exchange of Prototyping and Testing Information

2010· article· en· W2068014134 on OpenAlexaff
Boris Toche, Greg Huet, Grant McSorley, Cle ́ment Fortin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct lifecycleComputer scienceNew product developmentKnowledge managementProduct managementProduct design specificationProcess managementProduct designProduct life-cycle managementMerge (version control)Context (archaeology)Product (mathematics)Systems engineeringSoftware engineeringEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modern perspective on product life cycle and the rapid evolution of Information and Communication Technologies in general have opened a new era in product representation and product information sharing between participants, both inside and outside the enterprise and throughout the product life. In particular, the Product Development Process relies on cross-functional activities involving different domains of expertise that each have their own dedicated tools. This has generated new challenges in terms of collaboration and dissemination of information at large between companies or even within the same organization. Within this context, the work reported in this paper focuses on a specific stakeholder within product development activities — the testing department. Its business is typically related to the planning and building of prototypes in order to perform specific tests on the future product or one of its sub-assemblies. This research project aims at investigating how results from testing activities can efficiently interface with other departments, in particular to offer relevant information feedback to designers. As a first step, a study based on an open source initiative is described to show how two natively disparate PLM tools can dialogue to merge information in a central environment. The principles applied in the study are then transposed to introduce a framework where information from prototyping and testing activities could be mapped and merged with design activities to match needs in a cross-functional setting.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207