MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285031979 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.180

Towards an Integrated Conceptual Design Evaluation of Mechatronic Systems: The SysDICE Approach

2015· article· en· W4285031979 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Chami, Jean‐Michel Bruel

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMechatronicsConceptual designSoftware engineeringHuman–computer interactionSystems engineeringManagement scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechatronic systems play a significant role in different types of industry, especially in trans- portation, aerospace, automotive and manufacturing. Although their multidisciplinary nature provides enormous functionalities, it is still one of the substantial challenges which frequently impede their design process. Notably, the conceptual design phase aggregates various engi- neering disciplines, project and business management fields, where different methods, modeling languages and software tools are applied. Therefore, an integrated environment is required to intimately engage the different domains together. This paper outlines a model-based research approach for an integrated conceptual design evaluation of mechatronic systems using SysML. Particularly, the state of the art is highlighted, most important challenges, remaining problems in this field and a novel solution is proposed, named SysDICE, combining model based system engineering and artificial intelligence techniques to support for achieving efficient design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.111 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicSystems Engineering Methodologies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207