MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402847032 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2024.8.001

Robotic assembly systems planning and scheduling problems: A revie

2024· article· en· W4402847032 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

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Tecnológica de PereiraUniversidad de Antioquia
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceSystems engineeringProduction planningEngineeringManufacturing engineeringIndustrial engineeringOperations managementProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolving market trends, characterized by an increasing demand for personalized products with short life cycles and variable demands, pose a significant challenge to the industry. One of the industry's strategies is to adopt robotic assembly systems to improve productivity and increase system flexibility. The widespread adoption of robots in assembly processes is evident; however, success is not guaranteed with implementation alone. Equally critical is addressing assembly planning and scheduling problems in robotic systems. To facilitate understanding, this review offers, in Section 2, a classification of robotic assembly systems, with an emphasis on a new layout termed the robotic matrix-structure assembly system. Section 3 classifies the planning and scheduling problems applied to the robotic assembly systems. In Section 4, we discuss the approaches and techniques used to formulate and solve the planning and programming challenges. Finally, statistical data are presented to illustrate current research trends and identify gaps for future research.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.237 · 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