Enhancing the Decision-Making Process through Industry 4.0 Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to meet the increasingly complex expectations of customers, many companies must increase efficiency and agility. In this sense, Industry 4.0 technologies offer significant opportunities for improving both operational and decision-making processes. These developments make it possible to consider an increase in the level of operational systems and teams’ autonomy. However, the potential for strengthening the decision-making process by means of these new technologies remains unclear in the current literature. To fill this gap, a Delphi study using the Régnier Abacus technique was conducted with a representative panel of 24 experts. The novelty of this study was to identify and characterize the potential for enhancing the overall decision-making process with the main Industry 4.0 groups of technologies. Our results show that cloud computing appears as a backbone to enhance the entire decision-making process. However, certain technologies, such as IoT and simulation, have a strong potential for only specific steps within the decision-making process. This research also provides a first vision of the manager’s perspectives, expectations, and risks associated with implementing new modes of decision-making and cyber-autonomy supported by Industry 4.0 technologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".