MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335877780 · doi:10.1115/1.4033234

Design Optimization for Sustainable Products Under Users' Preference Changes

2016· article· en· W2335877780 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Afshari, Qingjin Peng, Peihua Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct designProduct (mathematics)NoveltyComputer scienceEngineering design processNew product developmentProcess (computing)PreferenceIterative designProbabilistic designIndustrial engineeringDesign processRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringOperations managementWork in processMarketingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decisions made in the early design phase enormously contribute to the performance of a product during its life cycle. Since users' preferences may change over time, a product design should be revised under the preference change. Providing accurate data for designers ensures an optimal decision for product design; this research presents a new method to assess effects of the quantified changes on product cost and development time. In addition, two models to optimize design under unexpected disturbances are proposed. Normally, optimal parameters require several search iterations in design process before finalizing a product. The design time in terms of number of iterations can be reduced by adding resources in each iteration using modern control engineering methods. However, adding resources will increase the design cost. The proposed method in this research minimizes the total product design cost and environmental impacts under changes of users' preferences. The method is validated using an example of the smartphone design. The research novelty is a method of applying quantified changes of external disturbances (such as changes in users' preferences) in the design process, addressing a real problem in industry, and proposing optimal models of products for reduced cost and environmental impacts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computing and Information Science in EngineeringSame topicProduct Development and CustomizationFrench-language works237,207