MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133376534 · doi:10.11159/ijmem.2014.001

Integration of Quality Function Deployment and Functional Analysis for Eco-design

2013· article· en· W2133376534 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Mechatronics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality Function Deployment in Product Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality function deploymentSoftware deploymentFunction (biology)Quality (philosophy)Computer scienceProcess managementSystems engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessEngineeringSoftware engineeringBiologyMarketingPhysicsNew product developmentCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes an eco-design method to systematically generate design concepts for the reduction of environmental impacts. The method is based on the integration of quality function deployment (QFD) and functional analysis (FA) at the early design stage. While QFD provides a framework to reflect the voice of environment in the design planning and evaluations, FA focuses on the functional description of the design to support the generation of design concepts. Particularly, the morphological chart is used to support the synthesis of new design concepts. The integration approach is based on the matrix-based correlation modeling to explicitly capture the links among environmental requirements, engineering metrics, design functions and components. The proposed method consists of four steps. In Step 1, the matrix-based correlation models of the existing design are constructed through QFD and FA. In Step 2, one specific environmental requirement is mapped through the correlation models in order to identify the responsible design functions and components for design generation. Afterwards in Step 3, the identified functions are used to establish the morphological chart to generate possible design solutions (or components) for each function. Then, different design concepts can be synthesized by combining these possible solutions. In Step 4, the generated design concepts can be evaluated via engineering metrics that are relevant to the original environmental requirement. A coffee maker has been selected as an application to demonstrate the proposed 4-step method.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.218 · 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