Human-centric production and logistics system design and management: transitioning from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Industry 4.0 was presented more than a decade ago as the fourth industrial revolution, aiming to significantly raise the level of sophistication of interconnected technologies and thus increase manufacturing industries’ profits. However, because the technology-driven narrow focus of Industry 4.0 on performance and profit fails to explain how to increase prosperity for all the stakeholders involved, the European Commission has introduced the concept of Industry 5.0. This vision overcomes the weaknesses of Industry 4.0 by paying explicit attention to outcomes for humans in the system and establishing an environment to create human-centric, resilient, and sustainable systems. Considering these developments, this position paper and editorial introducing the special issue of the International Journal of Production Research elaborates on the transition from Industry 4.0 to 5.0 through 10 papers focusing on the human-centric pillar of Industry 5.0 and its impacts on production and logistics system design and management. This work presents guidance for a more systemic approach needed in future research: to include empirically grounded works and data-driven multimethod approaches that consider diversity in system operators and human factors demands holistically in order to incorporate ethical implications missing from Industry 4.0 – in the pursuit of Industry 5.0 systems.
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 | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".