MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226087358 · doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2022.1.002

Solution methods for the integrated permutation flowshop and vehicle routing problem

2022· article· en· W4226087358 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcelo Seido Nagano, Caio Paziani Tomazella, Roberto Tavares Neto, Levi R. Abreu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Project Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsJob shop schedulingPermutation (music)Vehicle routing problemMathematical optimizationGreedy algorithmComputer scienceScheduleProduction (economics)Iterated local searchRouting (electronic design automation)Focus (optics)Integrated productionIterated functionInteger (computer science)MathematicsMetaheuristic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration between production and distribution to minimize total elapsed time is an important issue for industries that produce products with a short lifespan. However, the literature focus on production environments with a single stage. This paper enhances the complexity of the production system of an integrated production and distribution system by considering flowshop environment decisions integrated with a vehicle routing problem decision. In this case, each order is produced in a permutation flowshop subsystem and then shipped to its destination by a capacitated vehicle, and the objective is to sequence these orders to minimize the makespan of the schedule. This paper uses two approaches to address this integrated problem: a mixed-integer formulation and an Iterated Greedy algorithm. The experimentation shows that the Iterated Greedy algorithm yields results with a 0.02% deviation from the optimal for problems with five jobs, and is a viable option to be used in practical cases due to its short computational time.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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