MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155090552 · doi:10.1243/09544054jem655

A systematic approach for the robust design of scalable product platforms

2006· article· en· W2155090552 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalabilityCompromiseProduct designComputer scienceProduct engineeringNew product developmentProduct design specificationProduct (mathematics)Competitive advantageTime to marketProcess (computing)Manufacturing engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Systems engineeringReliability engineeringEngineeringBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today's highly competitive and volatile market, companies are trying to bring their products to the market faster in order to maintain a competitive advantage. One of the strategies is to develop common product platforms for rapid new product development. The objective of this research is to develop a scalable product platform robust design (SPPRD) framework that can assist companies in creating product platforms quickly and efficiently. The essential of this framework is to infuse the robust design concept into the product platform design process. Two objectives of robust design - achieving performance targets and minimizing performance variation are evaluated in the Compromise Decision Support Problem (Compromise-DSP) model. This SPPRD framework is demonstrated with the design of a tube-fin evaporator platform.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.158 · 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