MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281570720 · doi:10.1017/pds.2022.133

Cardinal Maturity Determination of Technology Development: Medical Device Development Case Study

2022· article· en· W4281570720 on OpenAlex
Soumya Ranjan Mishra, Kamran Behdinan

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 Design Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaturity (psychological)Consistency (knowledge bases)Cardinality (data modeling)Selection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceCapability Maturity ModelMultiple-criteria decision analysisClass (philosophy)Technology developmentProcess managementOperations researchRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceData miningBusinessManufacturing engineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A novel application of Best Worst Method (BWM) enables one to incorporate the complexity of specific sub-criteria of technological development to assess its maturity with the pre-established Technology Readiness Level (TRL) framework. It utilizes the concept of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods to determine the cardinality of endpoint quantitative processes. The model is used to determine the maturity of Class II Ventilators and to detect the consistency aspects for their selection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · 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