MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137980132 · doi:10.1177/09544089211001776

Definition of customer requirements in big data using word vectors and affinity propagation clustering

2021· article· en· W3137980132 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part E Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality Function Deployment in Product Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisWord (group theory)Data miningArtificial intelligenceCrawlingProduct (mathematics)Big dataNatural language processingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Customer requirements (CRs) have a significant impact on product design. The existing methods of defining CRs, such as customer surveys and expert evaluations, are time-consuming, inaccurate and subjective. This paper proposes an automatic CRs definition method based on online customer product reviews using the big data analysis. Word vectors are defined using a continuous bag of words (CBOW) model. Online customer reviews are searched by a crawling method and filtered by the parts of speech and frequency of words. Filtered words are then clustered into groups by an affinity propagation (AP) clustering method based on trained word vectors. Exemplars in each clustering group are finally used to define CRs. The proposed method is verified by case studies of defining CRs for product design. Results show that the proposed method has better performance to determine CRs compared to existing CRs definition methods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.166 · 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