MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413958434 · doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2025.6.004

Makespan optimization in recycling-integrated flow shop scheduling using a modified NEH heuristic with industrial case study

2025· article· en· W4413958434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Apoorva Rao, M. Thangaraj, T. Jayanth Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Project Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob shop schedulingFlow shop schedulingHeuristicScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceMathematicsSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recycling in manufacturing is becoming increasingly crucial as industries seek to reduce environmental impact and improve operational efficiency. Introducing recycling at the initial stages of the production process plays a critical role in minimizing material waste, conserving natural resources, and promoting sustainable manufacturing. Considering these advantages, integrating recycling into core manufacturing workflows becomes a strategic priority. This study addresses the Flow Shop Scheduling Problem (FSSP), a classical optimization problem in operations research, by integrating a recycling mechanism into the FSSP framework. The problem considers n jobs and m machines, aiming to determine an optimal job sequence that minimizes the makespan while considering recycling activities. An enhanced NEH heuristic is developed to solve this modified FSSP, and its performance is validated using standard benchmark instances. The results demonstrate that incorporating recycling significantly improves production efficiency and offers meaningful insights for advancing sustainable manufacturing practices. A practical industrial case is also examined to illustrate the real-world relevance of the proposed model.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Project ManagementSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207