MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404773668 · doi:10.1017/dsj.2024.41

The reference system in product generation engineering: structuring reference system elements for advanced systems engineering based on the system triple

2024· article· en· W4404773668 on OpenAlexaff
Albert Albers, Christoph Kempf, Patrick Haberkern, Constantin Mandel, Alexander Kubin, Steffen Wagenmann, Simon Rapp, Kamran Behdinan

Bibliographic record

VenueDesign Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsStructuringSystems engineeringComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)EngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Product engineering in general and advanced systems engineering in specific are highly complex and unique processes that strive to deliver innovations – successful new products. To reduce risk and time, product engineers refer to existing (socio-)technical systems or subsystems. These references are part of the reference system. A great variety of elements can be used as reference system elements in engineering projects, but the different types of reference system elements and their roles are not yet characterized. However, this is a necessary prerequisite to model and conduct product generation engineering effectively. Here, we show how reference system elements can be categorized into three types that differ regarding their intended application in the actual engineering project. Therefore, we introduce three subsystems: reference system of objectives, reference operation system, and reference system of objects. Furthermore, we provide definitions for all subsystems to specify the allocation. We believe these results will form the basis for a continuous description and continuous engineering of consecutive and parallel product generations based on model-based systems engineering. Furthermore, the results will be the starting point for the development of design supports to assist engineers in designing their specific reference systems and to make the reference system part of efficient engineering processes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDesign ScienceSame topicProduct Development and CustomizationFrench-language works237,207