MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322113731 · doi:10.1115/detc2015-46475

Using Big Data to Minimize Uncertainty Effects in Adaptable Product Design

2015· article· en· W2322113731 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Afshari, Qingjin Peng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptabilityComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)Big dataProduct designSet (abstract data type)New product developmentProduct design specificationIndustrial engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringData miningEngineeringBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the major concerns for adaptable products is to ensure the products to meet customer preferences. As customers may update their preferences over the product lifetime, designers need methods to measure those preferences. Lack of knowledge (uncertainty) in customer preferences could endanger the product success. If designers can update their views for customer requirements, a product can be designed to follow the user requirements. Huge data are generated continuously in product user behavior, product usage, manufacturing cost etc., now called as Big Data. Collecting, managing and applying such huge set of data in an innovative method can reduce uncertainties. In this paper, a method is discussed to minimize uncertainty effects on products to improve the product adaptability. Uncertainty is considered as changes of the customer preference. The proposed method uses Big Data (BD) in the analysis of uncertainty. The effect of quantified uncertainties on product adaptability is investigated. The method is concluded with the most affected parts and functional requirements to be updated to meet changing requirements. The proposed method is compared to a developed agent-based modeling (ABM) method in a case study. Although there are some differences between both methods in the uncertainty effect evaluation, The BD method provides more confidence for the design solution. The paper also proposes some future research directions for design of adaptable products using Big Data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.603
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207