MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105093638 · doi:10.1109/wsc.2002.1166482

Application of simulation and mean value analysis to a repair facility model for finding optimal staffing levels

2003· article· en· W2105093638 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. Boyer, A. Neil Arnason

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingTask (project management)Computer scienceQueueResource allocationQueueing theoryOperations researchConstraint (computer-aided design)Service (business)Discrete event simulationObject (grammar)Resource (disambiguation)SimulationOperations managementComputer networkEngineeringArtificial intelligenceSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Staffing problems arise in a wide range of applications including job shops, call centres, and hospital emergency departments. They are characterised by the need to allocate shift workers with varying skills to handle an arrival stream of tasks having different sub-task routings and (sub-task) skill requirements. The Manitoba Telecom Service Trouble Diagnosis and Repair System (TDRS) has 3 skill-levels of staff handling multiple types of faults occurring in telephone switching equipment. TDRS is a pure staffing problem having no equipment constraints: the only resource constraint is staff itself. The object of this study is to show how this can be modelled as an open network of queues with feedback and allowing for temporal and fault-class heterogeneity. Analytic mean value analysis then facilitates validation and selecting feasible staffing strategies for closer examination by simulation. The purpose of experiments using simulation is to find effective performance visualisations and "optimal" staffing allocations.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207