Composition of module stock for final assembly using an enhanced genetic algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bruno Agarda*, Catherine da Cunhab & Bernard Cheungc a CIRRELT, Département de Mathématiques et de Génie Industriel , École Polytechnique de Montréal , Montréal (Québec), Canada b Laboratoire IRCCyN, École Centrale de Nantes , Nantes Cedex 03, France c GERAD, École Polytechnique de Montréal , Montréal (Québec), Canada * E-mail: bruno.agard@polymtl.ca The paper focuses on modelling and solving a design problem, namely the selection of a set of modules to be manufactured at one or more distant sites and shipped to a proximity site for final assembly subject to time constraints. The problem is modelled as a mathematical one, and solved by an appropriately designed genetic algorithm enhanced with a modified crossover operation, a uniform mutation with adaptive rate and a partial reshuffling procedure. The actual design problem is solved with 17 components. Larger problems may be solved without modifying the modelling steps, although they may require variation in terms of processing time, depending on the constraints that exist between the components.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".