MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977855770 · doi:10.35199/dfx2019.13

A Concept Map for Design Method Experiments in Product Development – A Guideline for Method Developers

2019· article· en· W2977855770 on OpenAlex
Selin Üreten, Matthias Eisenmann, Thomas Nelius, Shi Cao, Sven Matthiesen, Dieter Krause

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNew product developmentProduct (mathematics)GuidelineProduct designFacilitationSoftware engineeringDevelopment (topology)Management scienceKnowledge managementSystems engineeringProcess managementData scienceEngineeringMathematicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the emergence of experiments in product development and yet still missing systematic adjustment of the generic experimental design procedure to test design methods. a facilitation is required. A concept map to depict the most important elements to consider when validating design methods in an experiment was developed systematically to guide method developers. Combining literature findings with the analysis of six cases in academia and an intensive exchange of researchers between different institutions resulted in the concept map. Future research potentials in the definition of variables. gaining objective results and managing the required tools are outlined. The concept map is available online for further feedback from the community.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207