Bibliographic record
Abstract
A formal coordination-based method is presented to systematically deal with the subjective tradeoff between “performance precision” and “performance accuracy” in robust design, where the coordination of tradeoff is treated as analogous to the control of a physical process. A two-objective optimization model that minimizes design variability and maximizes design functionality is formulated to characterize design robustness. By treating coordination as a control process, a fuzzy control approach is suggested to express and configure the coordination mechanism based on fuzzy logic by which design tradeoffs can be automatically coordinated via fuzzy control rules. To underlie the coordination-based method, three design models are derived with respect to three design schemes in robust design. By adjusting a design control parameter, these models enable one to obtain alternate Pareto-optimal design solutions. Based on the fuzzy control rules (also serving as a “design super-criterion”), design coordination can be governed toward the most desirable robust design in the Pareto-optimal solution domain. A welded beam design example is implemented to illustrate validity and applicability of the method.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".