Treatment of the Responsibility and Controllability in Team-Based Concurrent Product and Process Design
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In team-based concurrent product and process design (CPPD), one type of team activities proceeds alternately in a one-by-one fashion. This sequential mode of design flow can be treated as a generalized leader/follower team paradigm, in which the leader acts as a principal team and the follower as a subordinate team. In the dual-team approach, the leader and the follower correspond to two aspects of CPPD — product design and process design — whereby the alternate nature of design tasks can be characterized through the interactions of the leader and the follower. To reveal the variety of such team activities, the notion of responsibility and controllability in various design protocols is introduced to describe the respective roles of the leader and the follower in team design. The method of Design for Satisfaction (DfS) is used as a framework to characterize team’s preference toward a feasible design in view of the team’s goal. Accordingly, the satisfaction-driven dual-team based CPPD models are developed to account for different team scenarios. A design example is used to support the illustration of the team design approach suggested.
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 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 it