MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066228749 · doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.633234

Models for automated storage and retrieval systems: a literature review

2011· review· en· W2066228749 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

VenueInternational Journal of Production Research · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIndustrial engineeringOperations researchData scienceData miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems (AS/RS) are warehousing systems that use mechanised devices to accomplish the repetitive tasks of storing and retrieving parts in racks. Since these systems represent a significant investment and considerable operating costs, their use must be as efficient as possible. AS/RS performance is the result of the interaction of many complex and stochastic subsystems. This reality creates a need for robust and efficient evaluation models. This article complements previous surveys on AS/RS by focusing on the particular research question addressed by each work and the associated assumptions used for the various models designed for evaluating AS/RS. Dynamic models based on simulation dominate the most recent literature; however, static approaches based on travel-time modelling have strongly contributed to the study of AS/RS. This review includes dynamic – simulation-based – models, but considers also steady-state (travel-time-based) models. We believe that this review may be of great help to researchers and industrial users in their search for the best modelling approach for a specific problem.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.275 · 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