INTEGRATION OF ART AND DESIGN IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is Design a process or an art form? Traditionally design has been taught in Engineering as a process that started with the definition of a need for a product or a process and culminated in a deliverable that took the form of a project record and usually a set of manufacturing drawings. There was always a good deal of emphasis on design for manufacturing as well as the minimization of product cost. As a result of this, and our inability to judge "creativity", designs had a tendency to be fully functional but not very esthetically pleasing. In other words the designs worked but, as often as not, were ugly. It seems that most engineers are very "left brained". As a result they are very comfortable with the notion of calculating anything required to make the design functional and cost effective but are not at all comfortable in making the design "work" from an industrial design perspective. Leading manufacturers of products are not satisfied with designs that are only functional. They recognize that for a product to be successful it must function but must also appeal to the customer. To enable this to happen requires more than the traditional hard calculation of optimal functional parameters; it requires a team approach that brings both the hard technical side and the more artistic industrial design side.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".