MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288549872 · doi:10.5555/2888619.2888866

Improving a hardwood flooring cutting system through simulation and optimization

2015· article· en· W2288549872 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCentre de Recherche Industrielle du QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)ScheduleProduction scheduleOrder (exchange)Value (mathematics)Computer scienceIndustrial engineeringEngineeringEconomicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hardwood flooring mills transform rough wood into several boards of smaller dimensions. For each piece of raw material, the system tries to select the cutting pattern that will generate the greatest value, taking into account the characteristics of the raw material. However, it is often necessary to choose less profitable cutting patterns in order to respect market constraints. This reduces production value, but it is the price to pay in order to satisfy the market. We propose an approach to improve production value. We first use simulation on a training set of virtual boards in order to generate a database associating cutting patterns to expected production value. Then, we use an optimization model to generate a production schedule maximizing the expected production value while satisfying production constraints. The approach is evaluated using industrial data. This allows recovering approximately 30 % of the value lost when using the original system.

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)0.000
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 score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.216 · 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