MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950108961 · doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.1639840

A variability taxonomy to support automation decision-making for manufacturing processes

2019· article· en· W2950108961 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 Planning & Control · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsAutomationTaxonomy (biology)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Domain (mathematical analysis)Process automation systemSystems engineeringManufacturing engineeringProcess managementEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although many manual operations have been replaced by automation in the manufacturing domain, in\nvarious industries skilled operators still carry out critical manual tasks such as final assembly. The\nbusiness case for automation in these areas is difficult to justify due to increased complexity and costs\narising out of process variabilities associated with those tasks. The lack of understanding of process\nvariability in automation design means that industrial automation often does not realise the full benefits\nat the first attempt, resulting in the need to spend additional resource and time, to fully realise the\npotential. This article describes a taxonomy of variability when considering automation of\nmanufacturing processes. Three industrial case studies were analysed to develop the proposed\ntaxonomy. The results obtained from the taxonomy are discussed with a further case study to\ndemonstrate its value in supporting automation decision-making.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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