Pugh matrix and aggregated by extent analysis using trapezoidal fuzzy number for assessing conceptual designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deciding conceptual stage of engineering design to identify an optimal design concept from a set of alternatives is a task of great interest for manufacturers because it has an impact on profitability of the manufacturing firms in terms of extending product demand life cycle and gaining more market share. To achieve this task, design concepts encompassing all required attributes are developed and the decision is made on the optimal design concept. This article proposes the modeling of decision making in the conceptual design stage of a product as a multicriteria decision making analysis. The proposition is based on the fact that the design concepts can be decided based on considering the available design features and various sub-features under each design feature. Pairwise comparison matrix of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is applied to determine the weights for all design features and their sub-features depending on the importance to the design features to the optimal design and contributions of the sub-features to the performance of the main design features. Fuzzified Pugh matrices are developed for assessing the availability of the sub-features in the design concept. The cumulative from the Pugh matrices produced a pairwise comparison matrix for the design features from which the design concepts are ranked using a minimum degree of possibility. The result obtained show that the decision process did not arbitrarily apportion weights to the design concepts because of the moderate differences in the final weights.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".