MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973070828 · doi:10.1002/sres.2627

Systemic virtues as a foundation for a general theory of design elegance

2019· article· en· W2973070828 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSystems Research and Behavioral Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsSurrey Place Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEleganceAxiologyEpistemologyFoundation (evidence)Value (mathematics)Perspective (graphical)Engineering ethicsOrder (exchange)Management scienceSociologyComputer sciencePhilosophyEngineeringLawEconomicsPolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent discussion and research in systems engineering have highlighted the need for a principled approach to attaining elegance in engineered systems, in order to enhance product value and reduce life cycle risks. In this paper, we analyse the “elegance factors” pertaining to designed systems from the perspective of the philosophy of value (axiology) and characterize the elegance factors as “systemic virtues,” analogous to philosophical models of the factors pertaining to the “goodness” of persons and scientific theories. We defend the possibility of the existence and discovery of general systems laws that could ground a general theory of design elegance, and report on our strategy and progress in developing methods for discovering such laws and for developing such a theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.230
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.201 · 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