A fuzzy expert system for design performance prediction and evaluation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a fuzzy expert system for design project performance evaluation and prediction. It presents a comprehensive framework of factors that impact design performance and factors used to measure performance. A new approach to generating membership functions based on objective data is presented. This approach provides for membership functions that are widely applicable in a given context and can be calibrated to suit different contexts. A method of generating expert rules to relate factors impacting design performance is presented. A survey was conducted to collect data to develop and test the proposed methods. These methods were used in developing the fuzzy expert system. Based on validation of the system, the fuzzy expert system provides accurate linguistic predictions of design performance parameters. The methods presented in this paper are useful and realistic in modeling design performance and in capturing the inherent subjectivity involved.Key words: construction, design, evaluation, expert systems, fuzzy logic, performance, prediction, productivity.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it