MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000731052 · doi:10.4271/2019-36-0189

Customer Profile Identification and correlation between the customer damage and durability tests

2020· article· en· W3000731052 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

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality Function Deployment in Product Design
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDurabilityIdentification (biology)Computer scienceReliability engineeringForensic engineeringEngineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Vehicle durability is related to its long-term performance. In order to assess the vehicle, subsystems and components expected life, those are subjected to extreme conditions to identify possible issues, detecting its causes and consequences, in order to reach a desired standard of excellence in the future.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">In the context, durability tests have been facing new challenges: Not only Vehicle development cycles have been reduced, but also there is a strong demand for weight reduction. Therefore, increasing the assertiveness of test parameters is a key factor in achieving these two demands.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">The present study aims to develop a method that allows the correlation between the durability tests and the customer use profile. Thus, it will be possible to determine a durability target aligned to the actual damage load which the vehicles are subjected, setting the test severity level to represent the customer demand.</div></div>

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.226 · 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