MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036432451 · doi:10.1080/01605682.2020.1755897

Algorithms for the Calzedonia workload allocation problem

2020· article· en· W3036432451 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

VenueJournal of the Operational Research Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAssembly Line Balancing Optimization
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Bath
KeywordsWorkloadComputer scienceMathematical optimizationHeuristicMetaheuristicVariable neighborhood searchScheduling (production processes)Sequence (biology)HeuristicsVariable (mathematics)Job shop schedulingSimple (philosophy)Project managementProcess (computing)Operations researchAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceScheduleEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Workload Allocation Problem consists of assigning a sequence of |S| operations to workers. The order of these operations is fixed. Each operation consists of a batch of B units, hence a total of |J| jobs have to be performed. Each worker is assigned to an ordered subset of consecutive jobs. Workers have different skills, and therefore jobs take a variable time to process, depending on the assigned worker. The study of this problem is rooted in the operations of Calzedonia. In this paper, we briefly introduce the application before presenting algorithms for solving the problem exactly and heuristically. Our computational results compare the performance of a stand-alone mathematical formulation solved by CPLEX, a sequential exact algorithm, and a metaheuristic, with a simple heuristic implemented in the company.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.269 · 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