Investigating the productivity in different assembly system configurations for a better inclusion of disabled workers
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
One of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals is focused on decent work and growth which aims to reduce and, finally, remove all barriers for people with a form of diversity like disability. In such a context, manufacturing and production systems should be adapted by adopting specific equipment to help workers with disability while executing jobs according to the type of disability they report. Jobs must be properly planned since disabled workers have physical or cognitive disabilities and specific rights to work. Further, aiming to guarantee a real inclusion of workers with disability production systems should be designed to include these workers in the same working environment as workers without disability. This paper focuses on assembly systems, and it aims to investigate how different designs could impact both the productivity and inclusion of disabled workers. Then, due to the higher variety of products belonging to the same family mixed model assembly systems are considered. For each assembly system design, the daily productivity is calculated by using a simulation approach. Finally, according to the obtained results we provide some considerations about the convenience of adopting parallel flows to guarantee higher inclusion without affecting too much the productivity of the assembly system.
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 | 0.000 | 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