Paired Computer-Aided Design: The Effect of Collaboration Mode on Differences in Model Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present the results of an experiment investigating two different modes of collaboration on a series of computer-aided design (CAD) tasks. Inspired by the pair programming literature, we anticipate that partners working in a fully synchronous collaborative CAD environment will achieve different levels of quality in CAD models depending on their mode of collaboration — one in which the pair is free to work in parallel, and another where the pair must coordinate to share one control. We found that a shared CAD control led to significantly better overall CAD quality than parallel CAD control. In addition, the shared control mode led to more complete and consistent CAD models, as well as the tendency for participants to follow instructions to correctly replicate features for the design task. As is predicted in the literature, a trade-off relationship (albeit weak) between quality and speed via the parallel collaboration was found. In contrast, the shared control mode shows no clear relationship between speed and quality. Collaborative CAD is increasingly seen as an appealing tool for modern product design teams. This study suggests that the benefits of this tool are not solely the effect of the tool itself, but result from the collaboration style of the designers using the tool.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".