MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297194634 · doi:10.1177/09544054221122844

Product evolution analysis for design adaptation using big sales data

2022· article· en· W4297194634 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Zhang, Xie Guang, Qingjin Peng, Peihua Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Computer scienceProduct designModularity (biology)Product (mathematics)Product design specificationNew product developmentProduct engineeringReuseCrossoverInterface (matter)Industrial engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMarketingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Products are constantly evolving through design adaptations to satisfy market requirements. Efficient design adaptation via maximal reusing of existing design can improve product quality, reduce manufacturing cost, and time to market. Understanding of product evolution mechanism is required for design adaptations through rationalized modularity and interfaces. Emerging big sales data provide rich resources for product evolution analysis. To support efficient design adaptations, a framework and associated methods are developed in this work using big sales data for product evolution analysis. Reproduction, mutation, and crossover of product specifications are introduced as specification adaptation operations. Methods are proposed for identification of specification adaptations and estimation of the adaptation probability. Based on modeling and analyzing relationships among product specifications and components, different types of modules and interfaces are proposed through components clustering and their potential operation (mutation, reproduction, and crossover) probabilities. Design recommendations of adaptable product architecture with modules and interfaces are made for facilitating design adaptations. A case study of consumer Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UVAs) illustrates the proposed method. Limitations and potential extensions of the newly developed method are discussed. Further investigations of the product evolution mechanism using game theory to support competitive product development are included.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering ManufactureSame topicProduct Development and CustomizationFrench-language works237,207