MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147337787

A discussion of production planning approaches in the process industry

2001· preprint· en· W2147337787 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yves Crama, Yves Pochet, Yannic Wera

Bibliographic record

VenueORBi (University of Liège) · 2001
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProduction planningProduction (economics)Process (computing)Computer scienceDiscrete manufacturingMaterial flowControl (management)Process industryFocus (optics)Management scienceProduction controlIndustrial engineeringManufacturing engineeringEngineeringEconomicsArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we discuss the literature on production planning approaches in the process industry. Our contribution is to underline the differences, as well as the similarities, between issues and models arising in process environments and better known situations arising in discrete manufacturing, and to explain how these features affect the optimization models used in production planning. We present an overview of the distinctive features of process industries, as they relate to production\nplanning issues. We discuss some of the difficulties encountered with the implementation of classical flow control techniques, like MRP or JIT, and we describe how various authors suggest to solve these difficulties. In particular we focus on the concept of "recipe", which extends the classical Bill of Materials used in discrete manufacturing, and we describe how the specific features of recipes are taken into account by different production planning models. Finally,we give a survey of specific flow control models and algorithmic techniques that have been specifically developed for process industries.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations46
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueORBi (University of Liège)Same topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207