Production control of unreliable manufacturing systems producing defective items
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper seeks to address the production control problem of a failure‐prone manufacturing system producing a random fraction of defective items. Design/methodology/approach A fluid model with perfectly mixed good and defective parts has been proposed. This approach combines the descriptive capacities of continuous/discrete event simulation models with analytical models, experimental design, and regression analysis. The main objective of the paper is to extend the Bielecki and Kumar theory, appearing under the title “Optimality of zero‐inventory policies for unreliable manufacturing systems”, under which the machine considered produced only good quality items, to the case where the items produced are systematically a mixture of good as well as defective items. Findings The paper first shows that for constant demand rates and exponential failure and repair time distributions of the machine, the Bielecki‐Kumar theory, adequately revisited, provides new and coherent results. For the more complex situation where the machine exhibits non‐exponential failure and repair time distributions, a simulation‐based approach is then considered. The usefulness of the proposed models is illustrated through numerical examples and sensitivity analysis. Originality/value Although the decisions taken in response to demands for productivity have a direct impact on product quality, management quality and production management have been traditionally treated as independent research fields. In response to this need, this paper is considered as a preliminary work in the intersection between quality control and production control issues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".