MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071911490 · doi:10.1243/095440504322984894

Biomimetic design for remanufacture in the context of design for assembly

2004· article· en· W2071911490 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

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)ContradictionProduct designComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)EngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a biomimetic design method is applied to a specific problem in design for remanufacture. First summarized is remanufacture as an option to disposal at product end of life, and how products may be designed for ease of remanufacture. Next identified is a contradiction between a design-for-remanufacture strategy and design-for-assembly preferences. Specifically, making failure-prone features into separate parts facilitates remanufacture but results in additional parts to assemble. An example involving snap fits as a method of fastening and joining is used to illustrate the contradiction. To obtain ideas on how to address this contradiction, a biomimetic search method was used to find biological phenomena that are analogous to remanufacture. One such phenomenon is described and used to develop a concept that satisfies both design-for-remanufacture and design-for-assembly preferences.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.221 · 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