MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards a Framework for Assessing the Maturity of Manufacturing Companies in Industry 4.0 Adoption

2018· book-chapter· en· W2811405369 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in business information systems and analytics book series · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDigital Transformation in Industry
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaturity (psychological)Industry 4.0Context (archaeology)Capability Maturity ModelArchetypeBusinessManufacturingProcess (computing)Industrial RevolutionEngineeringProcess managementIndustrial organizationManufacturing engineeringMarketingComputer scienceGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent introduction of new disruptive technologies aimed at monitoring, controlling, optimizing, and automating production systems is shifting the manufacturing landscape towards a fourth industrial revolution. In this new industrial paradigm, manufacturing companies face complex challenges requiring the development of new organizational and technological capabilities. With this context in mind, this chapter is intended to provide a maturity assessment framework to understand the transformation process in manufacturing companies transitioning to Industry 4.0. The proposed framework is applied to 10 in-depth industrial case studies in Canada and Italy, two countries with increasing awareness of the Industry 4.0 revolution. A comparative case analysis revealed four different standards, or archetypes, for Industry 4.0 adoption, which are discussed and analyzed, highlighting a relationship between a company's manufacturing configuration and its path towards Industry 4.0 adoption.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

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 communication0.0000.007
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.242 · 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