Selection of industrial robot using axiomatic design principles in fuzzy environment
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
Nowadays, industrial robots are being pervasively used in almost every manufacturing organization for improving operational quality, safety and productivity. Depending on the nature of task to be performed, many varieties of robots are now commercially available from different manufacturers. For efficiently carrying out the designed task, a number of functional attributes of an industrial robot are also simultaneously responsible. Therefore, selection of an appropriate and competitive robot alternative becomes a complicated and equally challenging task for the decision makers. A quite strong model of multi-criteria decision-making is needed to deal with this problem of industrial robot evaluation and selection. In this paper, the applicability of fuzzy axiomatic design (FAD) principles is explored for solving a real time robot selection problem. Seven candidate robots which are commercially available for light assembly operations are evaluated with respect to a mix of nine criteria. All these criteria are either qualitative in nature or expressed as a range of numerical values. Suitability rankings of all the feasible alternatives are derived using FAD methodology, thus establishing it as a systematic and dependable tool for solving industrial robot selection problems in fuzzy environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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