MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099051709 · doi:10.1002/cjce.21766

Composite planning and scheduling algorithm addressing intra‐period infeasibilities of gasoline blend planning models

2012· article· en· W2099051709 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTime horizonComputer scienceScheduleScheduling (production processes)Genetic algorithmMathematical optimizationGasolineJob shop schedulingProduction planningComposite numberAlgorithmOperations researchProduction (economics)EngineeringMathematicsMachine learningEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Multi‐period planning models result in solutions which are feasible at the boundaries of the periods but may be infeasible within the periods. The composite algorithm presented here (i) solves coarse multi‐period MILP model structure for production planning; (ii) sequences operations via a genetic algorithm to minimise switching; (iii) verifies schedule feasibility via agent‐based simulation and local logical decision making; and (iv) if infeasible, re‐partitions the time horizon into multi‐periods and resolves from (i) until feasible. Application of the algorithm to gasoline blending illustrates its effectiveness in computing feasible plans and schedules for such systems. © 2012 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.207 · 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