MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Computational Analysis Of Balanced Jit Optimization Algorithms

2001· article· en· W2266332355 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueINFOR Information Systems and Operational Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsnobodyComputer scienceScheduleMathematical optimizationScale (ratio)CornerstoneAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The balanced schedule problem in mixed-model, JIT manufacturing is examined. Solving this problem is the cornerstone of production in any JIT facility. Although very efficient procedures have been demonstrated for the single-level problems, nobody has examined the nature of the solutions that these procedures actually produce. In this paper, the first large scale computational study is undertaken to examine these optimization algorithms. Furthermore, several open questions and conjectures have developed in the past few years. These open questions are formulated as propositions and answered by means of the extensive computational testing. The answers to these propositions are conclusive and, in some cases, quite unexpected. While it had appeared that most of the single-level problems had been efficiently solved, this study points to several interesting questions requiring additional study.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · 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