MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082604008 · doi:10.1115/detc2014-34317

Modeling Evolution of Uncertainty in Sustainable Product Design

2014· article· en· W2082604008 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Afshari, Qingjin Peng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct designComputer scienceNew product developmentProduct (mathematics)Metric (unit)Product lifecycleUncertainty analysisProcess (computing)Duration (music)Risk analysis (engineering)SustainabilityEngineering design processSystems engineeringProduct design specificationIndustrial engineeringReliability engineeringSimulationEngineeringOperations managementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although a large number of research activities have been conducted for sustainable product development, it is not easy to find a practical method applied in sustainable product design as there are many uncertain factors existed in particular problems faced in different phases of product development. Based on reviewed literature, it is found that it is necessary to have an optimization metric accompanied with uncertainty effects in product development. A model is proposed in this research to evaluate the effects of uncertainty in product life cycle. The goal is to quantify various types of uncertainty from internal and external sources to assess the design efficiency for mitigating undesirable effects of uncertainty. The design phase is aimed in the research to look at product parameters that are subject to change in the design process. Inaccuracy, indecision and imprecision are selected as information uncertainty levels to quantify the evolution of uncertainty. Using the proposed concept, the discrete-event simulation (DES) is used to model and evaluate scenarios to minimize design phase duration of a sustainable wheelchair. Suggested improvements are compared to search the optimal solution. The analysis and comparison of scenarios show ways to reduce design time by (1) revision of the design process, (2) breaking down the product into design details, and (3) providing a clear and technical definition of uncertainty to be mitigated. The model is also used to locate areas for sustainability improvement in the studied case.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSustainable Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207