MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396715162 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4046

A DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF THE DESIGNER'S PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY DURING THE LATER PHASES OF THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS

2011· article· en· W2396715162 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Damien Motte, Per-Erik Andersson, Robert Bjärnemo

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering design processProcess (computing)Computer scienceConceptual designDesign processWork (physics)Systems engineeringSoftware engineeringEngineering drawingEngineeringWork in processHuman–computer interactionMechanical engineeringOperations managementProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many specific and precise methods that support the mechanical engineering designer’s work during the conceptual design phase exist, while only a few general methods address the embodiment design and detail design phases. Our study presents the pattern of the designer’s problem-solving activity during the later phases of the design process. This model is in-tended to serve as a basis for further development of tools and methods directly oriented towards the de-signer at work in these stages of the design process. The descriptive model presented here is developed through observations of six designers at work in con-trolled experiments, and follows a previous study published elsewhere.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207