Integrating Large Language Models into Digital Manufacturing: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda
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
Industries 4.0 and 5.0 are based on technological advances, notably large language models (LLMs), which are making a significant contribution to the transition to smart factories. Although considerable research has explored this phenomenon, the literature remains fragmented and lacks an integrative framework that highlights the multifaceted implications of using LLMs in the context of digital manufacturing. To address this limitation, we conducted a systematic literature review, analyzing 53 papers selected according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Our descriptive and thematic analyses, respectively, mapped new trends and identified emerging themes, classified into three axes: (1) manufacturing process optimization, (2) data structuring and innovation, and (3) human–machine interaction and ethical challenges. Our results revealed that LLMs can enhance operational performance and foster innovation while redistributing human roles. Our research offers an in-depth understanding of the implications of LLMs. Finally, we propose a future research agenda to guide future studies.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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