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 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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