MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399681177 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2024.5.001

A two-stage stochastic model for picker allocation problem in warehouses considering the rest allowance and picker’s weight

2024· article· en· W4399681177 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elif Elçin Günay

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllowance (engineering)Rest (music)Computer scienceOperations managementStage (stratigraphy)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsOperations researchEngineeringMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Order picking (OP) is a critical yet time-consuming and labor-intensive warehouse operation within the supply chain. In picker-to-part systems with high demand, pickers are exposed to fatigue due to the excessive repetition of picking activities, which results in high human energy expenditure. The literature indicates that energy expenditure depends on the picking activity and the worker’s attributes, such as pickers’ weight, gender, and age. Studies have shown that as the weights of individuals increase, the energy consumed for the same task increases. This study proposes a two-stage stochastic programming model that minimizes assignment and overtime costs while avoiding excessive fatigue levels for pickers by incorporating rest allowance into the picking tour time. In the first stage, the number of pickers required is decided. In the second stage, orders are assigned to pickers considering uncertain energy expenditure. The two-stage stochastic programming model is solved by the sample average approximation algorithm. Results show that both OP cost and the number of pickers required to fulfill an order increase when the picker’s weight exceeds 80kg. In allocating orders, pickers weighing less than 80kg should be assigned to orders with more items, such as those containing 4- or 5-items. Conversely, pickers weighing more than 80kg should be assigned to orders with fewer items, like those containing 2- or 3-items, to avoid fatigue side effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics OptimizationFrench-language works237,207