MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029288411 · doi:10.1080/00207540210146161

Statistical process control subject to a labour resource constraint

2002· article· en· W2029288411 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas R. Rohleder, Edward A. Silver

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Production Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Sampling (signal processing)Mathematical optimizationLagrangian relaxationProcess (computing)Relaxation (psychology)Control (management)Resource (disambiguation)Total costStatistical process controlBudget constraintComputer scienceEconomicsOperations researchEngineeringMathematicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop a method for finding the economic sampling plan that minimizes expected total costs, subject to a constraint on labour time. We explicitly recognize the labour time required for sampling, investigation, extra processing effort per unit due to operating the process out of control, and the time to put the process back into control. These times, as well as the total production time, are frequently constrained by total available labour. With this constraint, we use a Lagrangian relaxation method to find the best sampling plan. Results of a numerical experiment show that the labour-constrained sampling plans and costs can differ substantially from the unconstrained solution. However, much of the cost penalty when labour is tightly constrained can be reduced with relatively small increases in total available labour time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Production ResearchSame topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207