MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562331715 · doi:10.18260/1-2--10336

Computer Aided Design Of Aerospace Components Tools And Implementation

2020· article· en· W2562331715 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Rivest

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerospaceContext (archaeology)Computer Aided DesignComputer scienceElectronic design automationSoftware engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Course ObjectivesThe course conveys a few dominant ideas.First, there is a strong interdependence between design tools and design processes.Introducing new computer-aided design tools in an engineering organization necessarily impacts the engineering processes that support new product development.Students are expected to realize that current CAD tools do no support all phases of the product development process.Therefore, one of the course specific objectives is for students to be able to explain the role of each tool at each product development phase.Second, one major aspect of CAD in aerospace design projects is the size of the organizations involved, where a single aircraft project easily draws on thousands of people creating ideas and sharing information.An adequate infrastructure as well as discipline is needed to efficiently share this evolving product data.Besides, there are as many ways to use CAD tools to document the product description as there are designers using them, some being more efficient than others.Modeling methodologies are used to standardize, to some extent, the methods used to create identified categories of parts.Two major classes of parts are Machined Parts and Sheet Metal Parts.Hence another specific objective of the course is for students to be able to use a Machined Parts Modeling Methodology and a Sheet Metal Part Modeling Methodology.Third, design tools are constantly evolving and many a practicing engineer is bound to decide which ones deserve being implemented to bring benefits in term of cycle time, productivity, quality and cost of product and design processes.It is therefore necessary to be able to evaluate in a structured and rigorous manner the benefits that can be brought to a design organization by the potential introduction of a new design tool.Students are thus expected, as a third specific objective, to be able to design and execute such a systematic evaluation plan.They must also be able to design a complete implementation plan taking into account licenses, legacy data, training as well as financial aspects of a typical software tool implementation project.These objectives are achieved through the study of the course content, described next. Course contentThe educational objectives are achieved by structuring this one-semester course on three poles: formal teaching hours, labs and a project.The following themes are studied during classes, where a unique combination of aerospace knowledge and design tools is proposed.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.011

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207