MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034731855 · doi:10.1093/jcde/qwaa059

A fuzzy-based framework to support multicriteria design of mechatronic systems

2020· article· en· W3034731855 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

VenueJournal of Computational Design and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechatronicsFuzzy logicConceptual designProcess (computing)Range (aeronautics)Fuzzy setIdentification (biology)Engineering design processMeasure (data warehouse)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Designing a mechatronic system is a complex task since it deals with a high number of system components with multidisciplinary nature in the presence of interacting design objectives. Currently, the sequential design is widely used by designers in industries that deal with different domains and their corresponding design objectives separately leading to a functional but not necessarily an optimal result. Consequently, the need for a systematic and multiobjective design methodology arises. A new conceptual design approach based on a multicriteria profile for mechatronic systems has been previously presented by the authors, which uses a series of nonlinear fuzzy-based aggregation functions to facilitate decision-making for design evaluation in the presence of interacting criteria. Choquet fuzzy integrals are one of the most expressive and reliable preference models used in decision theory for multicriteria decision-making. They perform a weighted aggregation by the means of fuzzy measures assigning a weight to any coalition of criteria. This enables the designers to model importance and also interactions among criteria, thus covering an important range of possible decision outcomes. However, specification of the fuzzy measures involves many parameters and is very difficult when only relying on the designer's intuition. In this paper, we discuss three different methods of fuzzy measure identification tailored for a mechatronic design process and exemplified by a case study of designing a vision-guided quadrotor drone. The results obtained from each method are discussed in the end.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.225 · 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