MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cognitive Automation in Mixed-Model Assembly Systems

2012· dissertation· en· W39368636 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tommy Fässberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCNational Health and Medical Research CouncilFondation Brain CanadaScoliosis Research Society
KeywordsAutomationMass customizationPersonalizationContext (archaeology)Product (mathematics)Computer scienceWorkloadProduction (economics)EngineeringManufacturing engineeringProcess managementSystems engineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractCustomization and personalization of products and services has become the new standard of doing business. In order to provide highly customized products at a reasonable price flexible processes are needed. One example of how a company may supply its customers with variation is VOLVO where the C30 model can be configured to as many as 56 million unique variants. Increased variants puts great strain on the production and assembly system. The product variation creates a vast need for information to support the assembly operators working in the final assembly. As an increased number of choices are required, support by cognitive automation for assembly operators working in a mixed-model assembly environment is needed. In production, especially in an assembly context, cognitive automation aims to support decision making in order to ensure production of error-free products. Increased cognitive automation could improve the operators’ work situations and decrease their workload while retaining the same physical automation. However, cognitive automation tends to be less developed than physical automation.The objective of this Licentiate thesis is to examine how cognitive automation can best be used to support operators in mass customized assembly. Three case studies were carried out at two companies, aimed at identifying their needs concerning cognitive automation. Results of these studies showed that increased product variance caused by mass customization creates a complexity, which may impact the number of assembly errors. One cases study aimed to develop a mobile ICT tool based on a smartphone application and test its possible implementation and benefits. The use of cognitive automation such as a mobile ICT tool can reduce the error rates in complex assembly environments. Although high levels of cognitive automation exists, the actual use of such support can be low, which might be a result of support not designed for the end user. Therefore an increased level of automation does not always provide more support. By altering the carrier and content, the cognitive support can be enhanced to fit the context e.g. mobile information carriers in large assembly stations. Providing more precise cognitive automation can thus target the challenges of more parts and procedures associated with mass customization.Keywords: Cognitive Automation, Information, Assembly 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207