An interval programming model for continuous improvement in micro-manufacturing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous quality improvement in micro-manufacturing processes relies on optimization strategies that relate an output performance to a set of machining parameters. However, when determining the optimal machining parameters in a micro-manufacturing process, the economics of continuous quality improvement and decision makers’ preference information are typically neglected. This article proposes an economic continuous improvement strategy based on an interval programming model. The proposed strategy differs from previous studies in two ways. First, an interval programming model is proposed to measure the quality level, where decision makers’ preference information is considered in order to determine the weight of location and dispersion effects. Second, the proposed strategy is a more flexible approach since it considers the trade-off between the quality level and the associated costs, and leaves engineers a larger decision space through adjusting the quality level. The proposed strategy is compared with its conventional counterparts using an Nd:YLF laser beam micro-drilling process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it