MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391909277 · doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2024.2.001

No idle flow shop scheduling models with separated set-up times and concept of job weightage to optimize rental cost of machines

2024· article· en· W4391909277 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

VenueJournal of Project Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdleRentingComputer scienceFlow shop schedulingSet (abstract data type)Industrial engineeringScheduling (production processes)Job shopOperations researchOperations managementMathematicsEngineeringJob shop schedulingScheduleOperating systemCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current paper investigates a two-stage flow shop scheduling model with no idle restriction, in which the time taken by machines to set-up is separately considered from the processing time. Owing to inherent usefulness as well as relevance in real-world situations, jobs' weight has additionally included. To eliminate machine idle time and cutting machine cost of rental, the reason for the conduct of the study is to provide a heuristic algorithm which, once put into practice, processes jobs in an optimal way, guarantees in smallest conceivable make span. Multiple computational examples generated in MATLAB 2019a serve as testament to the efficacy of the proposed strategy. The outcomes are contrasted with the current methods that Johnson, Palmer and NEH have demonstrated.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.247 · 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