MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213095722 · doi:10.3390/su14042408

A Decision Support System for Supporting Strategic Production Allocation in the Automotive Industry

2022· article· en· W4213095722 on OpenAlexaff
Edoardo Fadda, Guido Perboli, Mariangela Rosano, Julien Mascolo, Davide Masera

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive industryProduction (economics)Supply chainProcess (computing)Computer scienceOperations researchDecision support systemDecision makerProduction planningRisk analysis (engineering)Industrial engineeringEngineeringBusinessEconomicsArtificial intelligenceMarketingMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with the optimization problem faced by the manufacturing engineering department of an international automotive company, concerning its supply chain design (i.e., decisions regarding which plants to open, how many components to produce, and the logistic flow from production to assembly plants). The intrinsic characteristics of the problem, such as stochasticity, the high number of products and components, and exogenous factors, make it complex to formulate and solve the mathematical models. Thus, new decision support systems integrating human choices and fast solution algorithms are needed. In this paper, we present an innovative and successful use case of such an approach, encompassing the decision-maker as an integral part of the optimization process. Moreover, the proposed approach allows the managers to conduct what-if analyses in real-time, taking robust decisions with respect to future scenarios, while shortening the time needed. As a byproduct, the proposed methodology requires neither the definition of a probability distribution nor the investigation of the user’s risk aversion.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207