MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human factors in production and logistics systems of the future

2020· article· en· W3025383415 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Reviews in Control · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicErgonomics and Human Factors
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeEuropean Commission
KeywordsProduction (economics)Production planningWork (physics)Control (management)Process managementHumanitarian LogisticsIndustry 4.0Knowledge managementBusinessEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Engineering managementComputer scienceOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The way humans work in production and logistics systems is changing. The evolution of technologies, Industry 4.0 applications, and societal changes, such as ageing workforces, are transforming operations processes. This transformation is still a “black-box” for many companies, and there are calls for new management approaches that can help to successfully overcome the future challenges in production and logistics. While Industry 4.0 emerges, companies have started to use advanced control tools enabled by real-time monitoring systems that allow the development of more accurate planning models that enable proactive managerial decision-making. Although we observe an increasing trend in automating human work in almost every industry, human workers are still playing a central role in many production and logistics systems. Many of these planning models developed for managerial decision support, however, do not consider human factors and their impact on system or employee performance, leading to inaccurate planning results and decisions, underperforming systems, and increased health hazards for employees. This paper summarizes the vision, challenges and opportunities in this research field, based on the experience of the authors, members of the Working Group 7 (WG7) “Human factors and ergonomics in industrial and logistic system design and management” of the IFAC Technical Committee (TC) 5.2 “Manufacturing Modelling for Management and Control". We also discuss the development of this research stream in light of the contributions presented in invited sessions at related IFAC conferences over the last five years. The TC 5.2 framework is adapted to include a human-centered perspective. Based on this discussion, a research agenda is developed that highlights the potential benefits and future requirements for academia and society in this emerging research field. Promising directions for future research on human factors in production and logistics systems include the consideration of diversity of human workers and an in-depth integration of Industry 4.0 technologies in operations processes to support the development of smart, sustainable, human-centered systems.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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