A Framework for Modeling and Analysis of Human Repetitive Operations in a Production/assembly Line
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
<div class="htmlview paragraph">Repetitive movements have been found to affect assembly operations in many ways such as increasing the risk of injuries, increasing the cost of production, and reduction in the quality of products. This has been a big problem for industries. The method adopted by these studies seems to pose more injuries to workers as workers need to perform a task to the extreme level of pain to determine if repetitive injuries will occur or not. The method of modeling and simulation of human operations is a valid technique that is effective, but could be complex. Some of the modeling and simulation software packages make use of such guidelines as NIOSH, Snook and Ciriello, RULA, REBA, and Biomechanics single action analysis. However, various applications of these tools in actual ergonomic studies tend to be very time consuming and trivial due to the lack of a valid framework to guide the process. The objective of this paper is to present a detailed sequence of steps for injury analysis given an existing case study. T his framework can be used in conjunction with Delmia V5 software package to optimize various human operations given an existing assembly line.</div>
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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