Modeling of the Master Production Schedule for the Digital Transition of Manufacturing SMEs in the Context of Industry 4.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to propose a guide for the digital transformation (4.0) of a manufacturing SME’s medium-term production planning process, the master production schedule (MPS). A model of the current MPS process of a group of SMEs is presented as a starting point toward digitization. The current state of this process reveals a lack of tools to support decision making and the need to increase the reliability of input data and to make the process more agile. Industry 4.0 technologies and process modeling could increase agility in the planning process. However, the digital transformation of medium-term planning activities in SMEs has not been studied. To fill this gap, a group of six experts was consulted. The novelty of this study was to identify the Industry 4.0 technologies that could improve medium-term planning and integrate them into a standardized MPS process model. This model is an ultimate point of digitization that cannot be achieved immediately by any SME, but only after several cycles of planning, deployment, and improvement. Therefore, this research also provides a method to help SMEs determine how to start the digitization of their MPS process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".