MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143862728 · doi:10.1243/095440502320192932

Evaluating alternative manufacturing control strategies using a benchmark system

2002· article· en· W2143862728 on OpenAlexaff
Robert W. Brennan, O W

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)AdaptabilityJob shopHeuristicsControl (management)Discrete event simulationComputer scienceProduction (economics)Control systemIndustrial engineeringRouting (electronic design automation)EngineeringSimulationFlow shop schedulingJob shop schedulingArtificial intelligenceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an investigation of the effects of dynamic job routing and job sequencing decisions on the performance of a distributed control system and its adaptability against disturbances. This experimental work was carried out to compare the performance of alternative control strategies in various manufacturing environments and to investigate the relationship between the ‘control’ and ‘controlled’ systems. The experimental test-bed presented in this paper consists of an agent-based control system (implemented in C++) and a discrete-event simulation model. Using this test-bed, various control strategies were tested on a benchmark manufacturing system by varying production volumes (to model the production system with looser/tighter schedules) and disturbance frequencies. It was found that hybrid strategies that combine reactive agent mechanisms (and allocation strategies such as the contract net) with appropriate job sequencing heuristics provide the best performance, particularly when job congestion increases on a shop-floor.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering ManufactureSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207