Generic Design Methodology for Smart Manufacturing Systems from a Practical Perspective, Part I—Digital Triad Concept and Its Application as a System Reference Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapidly developed information technologies (IT) have continuously empowered manufacturing systems and accelerated the evolution of manufacturing system paradigms, and smart manufacturing (SM) has become one of the most promising paradigms. The study of SM has attracted a great deal of attention for researchers in academia and practitioners in industry. However, an obvious fact is that people with different backgrounds have different expectations for SM, and this has led to high diversity, ambiguity, and inconsistency in terms of definitions, reference models, performance matrices, and system design methodologies. It has been found that the state of the art SM research is limited in two aspects: (1) the highly diversified understandings of SM may lead to overlapped, missed, and non-systematic research efforts in advancing the theory and methodologies in the field of SM; (2) few works have been found that focus on the development of generic design methodologies for smart manufacturing systems from the practice perspective. The novelty of this paper consists of two main aspects which are reported in two parts respectively. In the first part, a simplified definition of SM is proposed to unify the existing diversified expectations, and a newly developed concept named digital triad (DT-II) is adopted to define a reference model for SM. The common features of smart manufacturing systems in various applications are identified as functional requirements (FRs) in systems design. To model a system that is capable of reconfiguring itself to adapt to changes, the concept of IoDTT is proposed as a reference model for smart manufacturing systems. In the second part, these two concepts are used to formulate a system design problem, and a generic methodology, based on axiomatic design theory (ADT), is proposed for the design of smart manufacturing systems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".