MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791281269 · doi:10.1080/21693277.2017.1422812

Optimal planning of buffer sizes and inspection station positions

2018· article· en· W2791281269 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

VenueProduction & Manufacturing Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingMathematical optimizationConvexityComputer scienceProduction lineBuffer (optical fiber)Line (geometry)Integer (computer science)Series (stratigraphy)AlgorithmMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of buffer sizing and inspection stations positioning in unreliable production lines is a complex mixed integer nonlinear optimization problem. In this problem, we have a production line with n machines and n fixed-size (storage) buffers in series. The machines produce parts that are either conforming or nonconforming, and the line includes inspection stations that reject the nonconforming pats. The goal is to find the optimal buffer sizes, the number and positions of the inspection stations, and satisfy the customer demand on conforming parts while minimizing the total cost. We present in this paper an exact method to solve this complex manufacturing problem. We also present new theoretical results on buffer-size bounds, stationarity, and cost function convexity permitting to significantly reduce the problem complexity. These theoretical and algorithmic developments allow solving to optimality instances with up to 30 machines tools developed previously cannot solve.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.293 · 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