MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134077729 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3988

POSTPONING PRODUCT RETIREMENT THROUGH ENGINEERING DESIGN

2011· article· en· W2134077729 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScope (computer science)Product (mathematics)Production (economics)Service (business)Product-service systemProduct lifecycleBusinessProduct designService lifeSupply chainRisk analysis (engineering)New product developmentOperations managementEngineeringComputer scienceReliability engineeringMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The environmental impacts of a product can be reduced in the three phases of its life cycle: production supply chain, service and retirement. The reduction of production volume, especially by extending the service life of existing products would mitigate environmental impacts. Durability, maintenance and repair can prolong normal operation. However, if service requirements change, the product may be retired while still in working condition. In these cases, retirement could be postponed if the product is capable of “adapting” to the new requirements. This paper shows the scope of “postponing retirement” in environmental design research, and discusses the benefits of adaptable design.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.155 · 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