MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415764117 · doi:10.29173/mocs311

Activity Sequencing Optimization in Petroleum Projects Using Simulation Modeling

2025· article· W4415764117 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Safinaz Eldawody, Khaled Nassar, Yasmeen A. S. Essawy

Bibliographic record

VenueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicResource-Constrained Project Scheduling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefineryScheduling (production processes)UpgradeSimulation-based optimizationBaseline (sea)InterdependenceSimulation modelingTask (project management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project management benefits from mathematical models that enhance resource allocation, scheduling, and cost efficiency while managing uncertainties. Although optimization is well-studied in construction, its use in sequencing petroleum project activities remains unexplored. This study develops an integrated simulation and optimization model to refine scheduling in refinery upgrades, minimizing project duration and addressing operational complexities. This paper presents a simulation-based optimization model designed to improve scheduling efficiency in a refinery upgrade project, where multiple tasks must be executed concurrently without extending the overall project duration. The model accounts for interdependencies among activities and resource requirements across internal and external work teams, ensuring optimal coordination and utilization. Developed using AnyLogic®, the simulation framework employs a random number generator to systematically explore task sequencing variations, leading to a refined execution strategy. The optimization results indicate a 20% reduction in the project's total duration. While resource utilization was assessed, it was not the model's primary objective. The utilization of resources has shown mixed outcomes; specific resources demonstrated an improvement of nearly 50%, yet the overall average utilization significantly decreased to just 0.12%, falling below the typical baseline of 40% observed in most resources. The model's performance and the optimization outcomes are analyzed, offering a decision-support tool for complex project management scenarios.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit ProceedingsSame topicResource-Constrained Project SchedulingFrench-language works237,207