The reference system in product generation engineering: structuring reference system elements for advanced systems engineering based on the system triple
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
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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