A Hybrid Data Mining Approach for Product Complexity Analysis.
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
This paper proposes a hybrid data mining approach to quantitatively analyze product complexity of prefabricated construction components from product nonconforming quality performance data. The proposed model is constructed in three steps, which (1) measure product complexity by introducing a Bayesian-based nonconforming quality performance indicator; (2) score each type of product complexity by developing a Hellinger distance-based distribution similarity measurement; and (3) cluster products into homogeneous complexity groups by using the agglomerative hierarchical clustering technique. An illustrative example is provided to demonstrate the proposed approach, and a case study of an industrial company in Edmonton, Canada, is conducted to validate the feasibility and applicability of the proposed model. This research inventively defines and investigates product complexity from the perspective of product quality performance. The research outcomes provide valuable insights for practitioners to better analyze and manage product complexity. In addition to this practical contribution, a novel hierarchical clustering technique is devised. This technique is capable of clustering uncertain data (i.e., probability distributions) and has the potential to be generalized to cluster all types of uncertain 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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