Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Design protocol data analysis methods form a well-known set of techniques used by design researchers to further understand the conceptual design process. Verbal protocols are a popular technique used to analyze design activities. However, verbal protocols are known to have some limitations. A recurring problem in design protocol analysis is to segment and code protocol data into logical and semantic units. This is usually a manual step and little work has been done on fully automated segmentation techniques. Physiological signals such as electroencephalograms (EEG) can provide assistance in solving this problem. Such problems are typical inverse problems that occur in the line of research. A thought process needs to be reconstructed from its output, an EEG signal. We propose an EEG-based method for design protocol coding and segmentation. We provide experimental validation of our methods and compare manual segmentation by domain experts to algorithmic segmentation using EEG. The best performing automated segmentation method (when manual segmentation is the baseline) is found to have an average deviation from manual segmentations of 2 s. Furthermore, EEG-based segmentation can identify cognitive structures that simple observation of design protocols cannot. EEG-based segmentation does not replace complex domain expert segmentation but rather complements it. Techniques such as verbal protocols are known to fail in some circumstances. EEG-based segmentation has the added feature that it is fully automated and can be readily integrated in engineering systems and subsystems. It is effectively a window into the mind.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".