MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159435952 · doi:10.18280/jesa.540214

Identification of Implementation Lean, Agile, Resilient and Green (LARG) Approach in Indonesia Automotive Industry

2021· article· en· W3159435952 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siti Aisyah, Humiras Hardi Purba, Choesnul Jaqin, Zulfi Restu Amelia, Hendra Adiyatna

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive industryManufacturing engineeringBusinessIndustrial organizationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indonesia's economic growth, which has developed in the last few decades, has contributed to an increase in the automotive industry sector. The automotive industry continues to increase the competitiveness of the automotive industry. The Lean, Agile, Resilient, Green (LARG) approach that has been applied by several global automotive industries, is able to increase competitiveness and performance in a sustainable manner. The purpose of this study is to analyze the implementation of the LARG approach in Indonesian automotive, as one of the bases for the automotive industry in Asia. The LARG value index is conducted to determine the level of application in the automotive industry in Indonesia. The mapping of the level of importance and performance of each of the LARG sub indicators was carried out using the Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) method. The results of this study confirm that there are several LARG sub indicators that have not been implemented properly. Green has the most sub-indicators that need to be improved, namely PG1 (ISO 14000 and OHSAS Certificates), PG2 (Collaboration with suppliers and customers in protecting the environment), PG6 (Carrying out industrial waste recycling), and PG8 (Product design that can reduce consumption of energy and raw materials). The calculation of the LARG implementation index value is 4.41.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Européen des Systèmes AutomatisésSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207