MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285099332 · doi:10.18280/jesa.550310

Dispatching Rules for Minimizing Deviation from JIT Schedule Using the Earliness -Tardiness Scheduling Problem with Due Windows Approach

2022· article· en· W4285099332 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTardinessHeuristicsScheduleComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationRetardJob shop schedulingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Earliness-Tardiness (E/T) scheduling approach, the Just-In-Time (JIT) schedule is a schedule with zero earliness and zero tardiness. However, this is an optimal schedule and even notional in some instances where tardiness and earliness are inevitable. However, minimizing the deviation at the upper region (tardiness) and the lower region (earliness) from the JIT schedule is a challenge. This work proposes solutions. Two proposed heuristics; TA1 and TA2 as well as some existing heuristics were explored to solve simulated problems ranging from 5≤n≤400 and the results obtained were benchmarked against the JIT schedule. The results obtained show that one of the heuristics, TA2 yielded JIT schedules for many problem sizes at the lower and upper deviation than other solution methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.213 · 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