MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117408461 · doi:10.1115/detc2013-13350

Tools for Sustainable Product Design: Review and Expectation

2013· article· en· W2117408461 on OpenAlexaff
Qingjin Peng, Arash Hosseinpour, Peihua Gu, Zhun Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 4: 18th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 2013 ASME/IEEE International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseProduct designProduct lifecycleSustainable designDesign for the EnvironmentProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceProduct life-cycle managementDesign review (U.S. government)Conceptual designSystems engineeringProduct engineeringLife-cycle assessmentSustainable productsDesign technologyProduct design specificationManufacturing engineeringDesign for XSustainabilityProcess managementNew product developmentEngineeringProduction (economics)BusinessOperations managementHuman–computer interactionProduct testing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable product design plans the entire life cycle of a product from its raw material selection, conceptual and structural formation, manufacturing processing, and usage to its end-of-life, reuse, and recycle. The product design needs the sustainable knowledge and proper tools. Current computer-aided design systems are insufficient to represent complex relationships of product functions, structures and life cycle options. It is required for design tools to support product life cycle planning with multi-objective optimal solutions. In this paper, our experience in design of a wheelchair is used as an example to discuss the need of design tools. The aim is to define ideal tools for design of sustainable products.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 4: 18th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 2013 ASME/IEEE International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and ApplicationsSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207