A benchmark-based method for sustainable product design
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
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop an effective approach to decide design details using benchmarking to capture the existing practice in sustainable design. Design/methodology/approach – This paper reports a systematic method for sustainable product design. The method uses benchmarks as references searching for design details to achieve sustainable solutions. Quality function deployment is used to guide the search process for competitive products using benchmarking to meet quantitative targets of product and to increase knowledge for sustainable design. Findings – The proposed method can meet both functional and sustainable requirements of product design. 18.55 percent reduction in carbon equivalent emissions is achieved compared to benchmarks in wheelchair design. The research reveals that when weight, material and number of components used in product decrease, environmental footprints and cost of the product improve. Originality/value – The research improves the existing method of sustainable product design. Both sustainable requirements and functional demands of product are identified from qualitative criteria to quantitative metrics using benchmarking and the life cycle assessment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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