Tres estrategias para la definición del Layout de celdas de manufactura empleando algoritmos genéticos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ONTARE. REVISTA DE INVESTIGACIÓN DE LA FACULTAD DE INGENIERÍA Este artículo presenta tres estrategias para abordar la solución del problema de la definición de la distribución de planta o Layout de celdas de manufactura empleando algoritmos genéticos: la primera, corresponde a la solución independiente de la formación de las celdas y el Layout; la segunda, es la solución en su forma multi-objetivo empleando el algoritmo NSGA2; y finalmente, se presenta la solución simultánea en la cual se agrupa en una sola función objetivo la formación de las celdas y la definición del Layout que se soluciona con un algoritmo genético mono-objetivo, igual que se hizo en la primera estrategia. Los resultados demostraron que la segunda estrategia facilita el trabajo del diseñador porque da una visión amplia de las posibles soluciones, sin embargo, las otras dos estrategias presentan ventajas interesantes que pueden ser aplicadas en casos concretos que posean recursos limitados.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".