A semantic model for axiomatic systems 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
Design of large-scale engineering systems such as an automobile, satellite, or airplane is a process to satisfy requirements by making various decisions. Design axioms provide system designers with a theoretical background to make right decisions. However, the axiomatic systems design is still hard to be implemented in the real word due to its informal representation for both the human and machine, and few researches focus on formalizing concepts of this process. In order to define axiomatic systems design models to be both user-understandable and machine-readable, this paper combines axiomatic design process with the Semantic Web technology and proposes an axiomatic design semantic representation model, called axiomatic design ontology, which organizes customers’ requirements, functional requirements, design parameters, and design solutions. The class of concepts elements and their semantic relationships are defined by the Web Ontology Language (OWL2). Rules for identifying functional couplings (the Independence Axiom) and selecting the optimal design solution (the Information Axiom) are formally represented and encoded with the Semantic Web Rule Language, which enhances the reasoning capability of the axiomatic design ontology. A framework for capturing systems design semantic information based on the axiomatic design ontology, and aligning it with domain-specific ontologies according to the semantic mapping approach has been developed, by which elaborated design information is captured and shared. Finally, a case study of systems design of a satellite solar wing subsystem is given to demonstrate the proposed axiomatic design ontology-based systems design approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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