Innovative Product Design Based on General Theory of Powerful Think
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovation is a key for enterprises to be competitiveness in the market. The innovation lies mainly in the product design stage. Design is a process of transforming user needs into concrete structures. It is inefficient for designers to rely on experience in design on the basis of trial and error. It is an inevitable trend to systematize the theory of product innovation. Invention Problem Solving Theory or TRIZ in Russian is an innovative design theory. Based on analyzing a large number of high-level patents around the world, it was firmly believed that contradictions in product design are fundamental reasons leading to failure of the product to meet users’ needs. Therefore, in the process of product design and improvement, contradictions must be found and solved, rather than using compromise methods to ease contradictions. Classical TRIZ methods can help design of new products, but they can no longer meet needs of solving multi-contradiction problems in complex systems. In recent years, multi-contradictions have become one of the urgent problems in the field of product innovation. For this reason, some scholars proposed a general theory of powerful thinking, or OTSM in Russian.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".