Automated Discovery and Utilization of Tacit Knowledge in Facility Layout Planning and Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper puts forth a novel methodology for facilities layout planning and optimization, where the fitness evaluation of layout alternatives is automatically performed by employing an artificial neural network trained to preferences of the domain experts.The inherently uncertain, unstructured, and often tacit nature of facilities layout design preferences, constraints, and fitness objectives demands the use of domain experts for the fitness evaluation of layout alternatives, which is a resource-intensive process.Indeed, the usual unavailability of domain experts in a timely or economical manner highlights the need for resorting to the use of some intelligent and effective automation technique in this important domain.In order to test the key novel ingredient of the proposed approach, a variety of artificial neural networks are trained on a large data set containing both qualitative and quantitative fitness values of layout alternatives, as well as subjective rankings by a seasoned domain expert utilizing the knowledge of the application domain.Simulation results strongly support the viability of the proposed idea.Such an automated approach to fitness evaluations of layout alternatives is expected to significantly increase the efficacy and efficiency of the overall facilities layout planning process.Moreover, such an approach would spur the much sought for research in decision support and expert systems in layout planning.As such, the paper also provides some very interesting and promising, albeit challenging, future research directions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".