A CASE STUDY IN SYSTEMATIC AND METHODICAL DESIGN ENGINEERING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At RMC, in Mechanical Engineering, the third-year course MEE 303 ‘Principles of Engineering Design’ consists of 12 lectures and two mini-projects, one for redesign, and one for novel design. The redesign alternates between a water valve and an automotive oil pump. This case study is now up-to-date according to the most recent developments in the theoretical framework that is the basis for the systematic and methodical process. The search for solutions in this process involves creativity supported by systematic working.An automotive oil pump is to be redesigned for revised conditions. The existing oil pump originated from the 1970’s, and was used in a V-8 engine. A reconstituted set of engineering drawing was prepared. Using the recommended systematic procedure, and other appropriate methods, students were asked to perform the redesign process: to develop a design specification, to analyze the existing pump to detect organs and functions, to explore the solution field with a morphology, and to suggested an improved embodiment. The case study as presented here serves as a sample solution.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".