MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309726404 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v13n6p14

Analysis of Time Measurement Strategies in the Automotive Components Industry Using Design Science Research

2022· article· en· W4309726404 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Érik Leonel Luciano, Jonas Henrique Da Silva, Rosinei Batista Ribeiro, Eliane Antônio Simões, Alexandre Formigoni, Eduardo Ferro dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Research in Diverse Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive industryComputer scienceDigitizationProcess (computing)SoftwareManufacturing engineeringProduction (economics)Work (physics)Industrial engineeringReading (process)EngineeringTelecommunicationsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The digitization of production processes is an important factor when considering the development scenario of advanced manufacturing. For companies to start this development, their processes need to be digitalized, and this is a growing demand. In this sense, this work aims to analyze the digitalization of time measurement activity in industrial processes, which is also known as Time Study or Chronoanalysis. Thus, the purpose was to analyze the use of video technologies as a support for people who are responsible for carrying out time measurements in industrial activities. This analysis aimed at the automotive industry, in application to a manufacturer of structural components of automotive vehicles. The Design Science Research (DSR) method was applied to identify the most critical process of the company, and in this activity to carry out time measurements using a video reading software called Quick Time Player® from the company Apple®, with a proposal to analyze the micro automatic movements of the machine, helping to identify movements that could be eliminated or have reduced times, generating cycle time reduction and increased production capacity. Finally, it was identified that there were benefits in the proposed method when comparing the analysis of time measurements with the use of the software and the company's usual methods, resulting in greater precision of chronoanalysis and user satisfaction with the new method.

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 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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.390
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.106 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicAcademic Research in Diverse FieldsFrench-language works237,207