MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225606115 · doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2021.12.001

Earliness/tardiness minimization in a no-wait flow shop with sequence-dependent setup times

2022· article· en· W4225606115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrés Felipe Guevara-Guevara, Valentina Gómez-Fuentes, Leidy Johana Posos-Rodríguez, Nicolás Remolina-Gómez, Eliana María González-Neira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Project Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTardinessSequence (biology)Mathematical optimizationFlow shop schedulingMinificationComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Job shop schedulingGenetic algorithmRetardDue dateFunction (biology)ProductivityOperations researchAlgorithmMathematicsEconomicsScheduleChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The no-wait flow shop scheduling problem (NWFSP) plays a crucial role in the allocation of resources in multitudinous industries, including the steel, pharmaceutical, chemical, plastic, electronic, and food processing industries. The NWFSP consists of n jobs that must be processed in m machines in series, and no job is allowed to wait between consecutive operations. This project deals with NWFSP with sequence-dependent setup times for minimizing earliness and tardiness. From the literature review of the last five years in NWFSP, it is noticeable that only around 1.92% of the researchers have studied that multi-objective function, which could help to improve the productivity of industries where methods such as just in time are considered. Besides, there is no information about previous researchers that have solved this problem with sequence-dependent setup times. Firstly, a MILP model is proposed to solve small instances, and secondly, a genetic algorithm (GA) is developed as a solution method for medium and large instances. Compared with the mathematical model for small instances, the GA obtained the optimal solution in 100% of the cases. For medium and large instances, the GA improves in an average of 31.54%, 38.09%, 44.58%, 47.72%, and 37.33% the MDD, EDDP, ATC, SPT, and LPT dispatching rules, respectively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Project ManagementSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207