Innovative design of multi-contradiction systems based on the function-structure model
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovative design of complex systems faces multi-contradiction (MC). The existing methods to solve MC are mainly based on the General Theory of Powerful Thinking (OTSM) which is independent of the classical Engineering Design Method (ED) to form the process model, they cannot inherit the accumulated knowledge and advantages of ED. This paper proposes a product innovation design process model for MC based on the function-structure model. It starts with an initial scenario of the system to build the function-structure model and MC network based on the root contradiction analysis. The network structure entropy and function importance decision methods are introduced for the trimming target confirming. The key contradiction-node is identified and solved by strategies of trimming based on internal and external resources of the system. The function-structure model in ED and trimming in TRIZ are combined to form an innovative design process for MC systems. The proposed method is evaluated in a case study of an innovative design of the girder bridge erector.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it