Fuzzy expert system for ergonomic assembly line worker assignment and balancing problem under uncertainty
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the era of Industry 5.0, there is a significant gap in addressing ergonomic risks and imprecise task times in manufacturing systems. This study aims to fill this gap by extending the ergonomic assembly line balancing problem with worker assignment. It employs a novel two-phase framework combining a constructive heuristic for feasibility with a unique ergonomic assessment method developed through a fuzzy expert system. Validated using 96 synthesized numerical instances, the proposed method addresses the scarcity of fuzzy and ergonomic-oriented data in benchmarks. Then, computational results are thoroughly analyzed to evaluate the method’s performance and identify potential areas for further research. The proposed optimization method provided high-quality solutions with a majority demonstrating low ergonomic risk and high worker safety, contributing to an overall improvement in ergonomic conditions. The integration of fuzzy expert system and advanced optimization techniques yields a robust framework for achieving a safer and more efficient manufacturing environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it