GRMI4.0: a guide for representing and modeling Industry 4.0 business processes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a new business process representation adapted to the needs of Industry 4.0 to facilitate the implementation of technological solutions in the construction sector. Design/methodology/approach This work is based on the Design Research Methodology approach and includes four phases: (1) a literature review on the main business process modeling standards and their ability to take into account the specificities of Industry 4.0; (2) the identification of the attributes to be considered to model Industry 4.0 processes; (3) the development of a mapping model for Industry 4.0; and (4) the validation of the model using a case study from the construction sector. Findings To the authors’ knowledge, current business process modeling standards do not effectively represent business processes in the context of Industry 4.0. Originality/value The proposed model can represent not only the 4.0 solutions that can be implemented in the construction sector, particularly from a technology and data perspective but also measures, with the help of performance indicators, the impacts of successive process changes in terms of skills, cost and time for a true 4.0 transformation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it