A dynamic version of the FRAM for capturing variability in complex operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) is a function-based approach to model complex socio-technical systems and to manage variability. The current FRAM related tools are unable to capture qualitative and quantitative characteristics of variability as well as temporal variations. This study presents in detail a dynamic FRAM-based tool, which is called DynaFRAM. It is introduced to address the variability-related deficiencies of the FRAM related tools. It aims to capture variability in complex operations. It is a dynamic tool developed to capture time related variations in complex operations. This increases the attractiveness of the DynaFRAM for complex operations where specialists and practitioners make decisions in complicated situations. The ability of the DynaFRAM is demonstrated by examining a healthcare related case study. Although the ability of the DynaFRAM is assessed through capturing variations in healthcare operations, it can be applied to other domains in a similar manner.•The DynaFRAM is a dynamic FRAM-based tool.•It is able to captures different characteristics of variability.•It facilitates understanding and analysis of variability in complex operations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".