Synthesis, Evaluation, and Selection of Parts Design Scheme in Supplier Involved Product Development
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taking into account the supplier involvement in the new product development (NPD), this article focuses on the synthesis evaluation, and selection of the part design scheme in part deployment process. The concepts of performance indicator (PI) and integrated performance indicators (IPI) are introduced to measure the performance of the part design scheme and product design scheme respectively. A two-layer fuzzy synthesis evaluation method is applied to assess the part design scheme in a supplier-involved new product development process. Combining the information of House of Quality (HoQ) and evaluation results of the part design scheme and taking into account the design budget, a 0–1 integer programming model is developed for selection of the parts combinatorial scheme in supplier-involved part deployment processes. A case study with a type of liquid crystal display (LCD) design in an Electronic Appliance Manufacturing Enterprise is also illustrated in the article.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it