MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388920321 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2023.10.002

A lean six sigma approach to glue problem in a furniture manufacturing company

2023· article· en· W4388920321 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGLUESix SigmaManufacturing engineeringComputer scienceProcess (computing)Lean Six SigmaOperations managementBusinessLean manufacturingProcess managementEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main focus of this research paper is to shed light on the challenges encountered by the chair production department employees when it comes to identifying and locating glue residue after the assembly process. This issue arises due to the transparent nature of the glue, making it difficult to detect and subsequently negatively impacting the overall quality of the chairs in the polishing department. To tackle this problem, various experiments and tests were conducted, which are thoroughly discussed in this paper. The findings of this study are not only applicable to the specific manufacturing company under investigation but also to other companies within the industry that face similar difficulties in detecting defects caused by transparent glue. As a result, a new method for detecting glue defects is proposed, which can be adopted by various industries encountering similar challenges.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.203 · 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