MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035118309 · doi:10.1017/dsd.2020.160

IDENTIFYING GAPS IN AUTOMATING THE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS

2020· article· en· W3035118309 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

VenueProceedings of the Design Society DESIGN Conference · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationMaturity (psychological)Process (computing)Data scienceScale (ratio)Emerging technologiesComputer scienceEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementBusinessPsychologyArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Crucial in the design process, Technology Readiness Levels are a common form of technology maturity assessment. Studies suggest that the TRL scale can be subjective and biased. Automating the assessment can reduce human bias. This paper highlights important challenges of automation by presenting data collected on 15 technologies from the nanotechnology sector. Our findings show that, contrary to claims from the literature, patent data exists for low maturity technologies and may be useful for automation. We also found that there exists unexpected trends in data publications at TRL 2, 3 and 4.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.215 · 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