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 OpenAlexaff
S.E. Faidi, Alison Olechowski

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.153
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.153
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Design Society DESIGN ConferenceSame topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207