Defining Environmental Indicators at Detail Design Stage as Part of an Ecodesign Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Implementing Design for Environment (DfE) into the design process requires a strategic integration. Furthermore, as DfE is continuously evolving, flexible processes need to be implemented. This article focuses on the integration of DfE into an optimization framework with the objective of influencing next-generation aircraft. For this purpose, DfE and Structures groups are developing together a set of new environmental indicators covering all life cycle stages of the product by coupling a list of yes/no questions with an environmental matrix. The following indicators are calculated: Regulation risk, Impact of manufacturing the part, CO2 emissions and Recyclability potential. These indicators will be used as constraints in the multi-disciplinary design optimization (MDO) framework, meaning that the structure will be designed while complying with environmental targets and anticipating future regulation changes. To illustrate this new methodology, it is applied to three common processes used in structural design on a generic part: aluminum with chemical milling, aluminum with mechanical milling and composite produced by automated fiber placement process. Through this initiative, it is believed that in the mid-term, manufacturing processes selection will not only be influenced by technical and cost requirements, but also considering their environmental impacts.</div></div>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".