MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966437426 · doi:10.1109/ieem.2012.6837759

Product driven quality control

2012· article· en· W1966437426 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlexible and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Product (mathematics)Control (management)Production (economics)Computer scienceManufacturing engineeringQuality controlReliability engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessEngineeringArtificial intelligenceEconomicsMathematicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Starting with the observation that a great number of defective products are released on the market, we wondered if product driven quality control (PDQC) could be more efficient to prevent such situations. To test this policy, we have built a job-shop manufacturing system using multi-agents technology that enables products to be proactive both for production and quality controls. In this system, each product is aware of its own quality and takes the initiative of quality measurements. PDQC has been systematically compared to classical frequency based quality control (FQC) policies. The results of the simulation show that there are less defective products in the case of PDQC and a better detection. However the level of uncertain products as the speed of detection are not influenced by this policy.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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