MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402847160 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2024.7.004

Energy-efficient scheduling for a flexible job shop problem considering rework processes and new job arrival

2024· article· en· W4402847160 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emrah Albayrak, Semih Önüt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReworkJob shopJob shop schedulingScheduling (production processes)Flow shop schedulingIndustrial engineeringComputer scienceOperations researchMathematical optimizationEngineeringOperations managementMathematicsScheduleEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable production is not limited to environmental concerns only; It also provides economic benefits for businesses. Businesses that adopt sustainability principles can gain advantages in matters such as cost savings, competitive advantage, risk management, legal compliance and corporate reputation. Therefore, sustainability is no longer an option but a strategic imperative for businesses. For this reason, studies on energy-sensitive scheduling have started to increase recently. Another important factor in sustainable manufacturing is the reduction of scrap. Rework operations are required to reduce scrap. In this study, the multi-objective flexible job shop scheduling problem (MO-FJSP) that considers energy efficiency is discussed. The created model aims to minimize the energy consumption, total machine workload and makespan. In this study, new job arrivals are considered as dynamic events. Another dynamic event added to the model is the addition of rework processes between operations to reduce the scrap rate when a scrap decision is made during the production stages. The enhanced NSGA II algorithm was applied to solve this problem. The enhanced NSGA II algorithm was applied to test instances and its performance was compared using some of the multi-objective performance indicators. These experimental results prove the effectiveness of the proposed solution method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207