An Effective Resource Matching Scheme Based on a Novel Unified Descriptive Model for Modern Manufacturing Industry Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to effectively solve the problem of heterogeneous design/manufacturing/service resources and isolation in the whole lifecycle and realize unified description of design/manufacturing/service resources and resource sharing across subjects and stages, this paper proposes a hierarchical and modularized ontology-based resource-unified descriptive model, according to the characteristics of design/manufacturing/service resources. We analyze all kinds of properties of the resources, design a specific descriptive model of ontology, function, and service, ensure the consistency and independence of resource descriptions, and use the OWL (Web Ontology Language) ontology descriptive language and Protégé tools to verify. Then, based on the unified descriptive model, a resource matching method based on multi-level tags is proposed, which matches the task request with the resources in the resource library, selects the resources that meet the task request, and guarantees the resource sharing across subjects and stages. The resource matching work first performs task description and decomposition, and uses information entropy and rough set theory to sort the importance of subtasks, then uses the semantic similarity algorithm to complete multi-level tags’ matching. Finally, two examples are used to prove the feasibility and effectiveness of the experiment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".