MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282926087 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24501

Integration of planning, scheduling, and control: A review and new perspectives

2022· review· en· W4282926087 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceControl (management)Management scienceOperations researchRisk analysis (engineering)Operations managementEngineeringArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The competitive, profitable, and safe operation of chemical plants depends on tight and effective coordination among the different decision making levels of the enterprise, including planning, scheduling, and control. The optimal integration of these functions has become critical given the disruptive effects of the recent COVID‐19 pandemic on the supply chains and the current trends in climate change. However, integrating multiple decision making levels creates modelling and computational challenges. In this study, we review the progress made in the integration of two and three decisions levels using mathematical programming and control theory tools. We highlight the model reduction and decomposition techniques that have been applied, as well as the main issues that remain unsolved. Perspectives on emergent areas of application and novel computing solutions are also discussed.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
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