Addressing a Collaborative Maintenance Planning Using Multiple Operators by a Multi-Objective Metaheuristic Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selective maintenance has a significant impact on the sustainable management of maintenance operations. The collaboration of multiple maintenance teams/operators is helpful to achieve sustainability for selective maintenance sequence planning. For products with a large number of components, a single maintenance team/operator is inefficient due to a long completion time which is not acceptable for emergency planning. Providing specific and efficient maintenance sequence planning is critical to effectively handle different types of emergencies (e.g., wartime) while avoiding vague task assignments to multiple maintenance teams/operators. For scheduling many maintenance jobs while improving the efficiency and quality of maintenance operations, this study proposes a collaborative maintenance planning based on the concept of imperfect maintenance. In this regard, this study develops a multi-objective optimization model to optimize parallel maintenance sequences considering maintenance profit, maintenance cost, maintenance team, and resource limitations. We show the feasibility of the proposed multi-objective optimization model through a real case of maintenance practice for the components of an assistor device. For analyzing the complexity of the proposed maintenance sequence planning problem, this study introduces a new multi-objective metaheuristic algorithm which is an enhanced multi-objective gravitational search algorithm (EMOGSA) to find high-quality Pareto solutions for the proposed problem. Different multi-objective evaluation metrics are used to study the performance of the proposed algorithm. From the results, the proposed model and developed solution algorithm can help maintenance decision-makers to determine complex maintenance planning.Note to Practitioners—This paper deals product with a maintenance and proposes gravitational search algorithm based on only maintenance task, which maintenance task. The goal of this paper is to analyze the maintenance problem from the perspective of collaboration of multiple maintenance teams/operators.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".