MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401634280 · doi:10.1115/1.4066223

Robust Design for Product Adaptation Considering Changes in Configurations and Parameters

2024· article· en· W4401634280 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Deabae, Deyi Xue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanical Design · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)Product designTree (set theory)Probabilistic designDesign of experimentsComputer scienceAdaptation (eye)Mathematical optimizationNode (physics)Engineering design processReliability engineeringEngineeringMathematicsMechanical engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Adaptable products are designed such that their configurations and parameters can be changed easily in the operation stage to satisfy changes in functional requirements. Design of adaptable products can extend lifespans of these products. A new robust adaptable product design method is introduced in this research to identify the optimal design including the product configurations and parameter values considering uncertainties in both product configurations and parameters. In this work, an AND-OR tree is used to model feasible design candidates and their configurations considering product adaptations, where each node represents a partial design solution. Different design candidates are created from the AND-OR tree through tree-based search, and a design candidate is defined by configurations of the original design and the adapted designs. Each configuration is further defined by parameters. A multi-level optimization method is used to obtain the optimal adaptable product design including its configurations and parameter values of these configurations. In this study, uncertainties of configurations are defined by probabilities for production adaptations, while uncertainties of parameters are defined by variations of parameter values. Both evaluation measures and their variations are considered in this robust adaptable product design method. A case study has been implemented to show how the developed method is used for the design of an adaptable mechanical system.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.128 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanical DesignSame topicProduct Development and CustomizationFrench-language works237,207