MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Setup Time Reduction for Electronics Assembly: Combining Simple (SMED) and IT‐Based Methods

2005· article· en· W2159737632 on OpenAlexaff
Sheri Coble Trovinger, Roger E. Bohn

Bibliographic record

VenueProduction and Operations Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSheridan College
FundersAlfred P. Sloan FoundationUniversity of California, San DiegoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsKey (lock)Computer sciencePrinted circuit boardElectronicsReduction (mathematics)Simple (philosophy)Process (computing)Manufacturing engineeringReliability engineeringEmbedded systemElectrical engineeringMathematicsEngineeringComputer securityOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As much as 50% of effective capacity can be lost to setups in printed circuit board assembly. Shigeo Shingo showed that radical reductions in setup times are possible in metal fabrication using an approach he called “Single Minute Exchange of Dies” (SMED). We applied SMED to setups of high speed circuit board assembly tools. Its key concepts were valid in this very different industry, but while SMED typically emphasizes process simplification, we had to add modern information technology tools including wireless terminals, barcodes, and a relational database. These tools shield operators from the inherent complexity of managing thousands of unique parts and feeders. The economic value of setup reduction is rarely calculated. We estimate a reduction of key setup times by more than 80%, and direct benefits of $1.8 million per year. Total cost of the changes was approximately $350,000.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations93
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProduction and Operations ManagementSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207