Concurrent optimization of the design and manufacturing stages of product development
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
The problem of concurrent optimization of the design and the process planning stages when a new product is developed is addressed. The paper advocates for a simultaneous approach rather than the traditional sequential one. A mathematical representation of this approach is given for these two stages. A mathematical programming technique is used to find the optimal values of the design and the process characteristics. The objective function is a quality loss function. The constraints are the customer requirements, the product's specification limits, the parts' dimensional limits and the process capability. The traditional sequential approach of concurrent engineering is compared with the proposed simultaneous approach. A parametric analysis of the objective function is performed by applying an interactive multi-objective goal programming technique. A numerical example of a low-pass electrical circuit is given. It is shown that the proposed approach leads to better efficient solutions than the sequential approach. The decision-maker interacts with the optimization process and can choose the efficient solution that best satisfies the company's needs.
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 | 0.001 | 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