MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W92127656 · doi:10.3233/jid-2004-8404

ENVIRONMENT-BASED FORMULATION OF DESIGN PROBLEM

2004· article· en· W92127656 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrated Design and Process Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationBiochemical engineeringMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a formal definition of design problem using the axiomatic theory of design modeling. Based on the concept of product system and an informal description of design problem, a design problem is formulated into three parts: environment, structural requirements, as well as performance requirements. On the basis of this formulation, both structural requirements and performance requirements are related to product environment, which is divided into natural, built, and human environments. As a result, product environment is identified as the source of product requirements. An environment-based formulation of design problem is thus developed. This formulation implies that both design problem and design solutions are included in a product system. The design governing equation is formulated to capture the interdependence relation between product problem and product descriptions along the design process. An example of rivet setting tool design is used to illustrate the mathematical formulations throughout the paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · 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