A Constraint Programming Approach to Ship Refit Project Scheduling
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
Ship refit projects require ongoing plan management to adapt to arising work and disruptions. Planners must sequence work activities in the best order possible to complete the project in the shortest time or within a defined period while minimizing overtime costs. Activity scheduling must consider milestones, resource availability constraints, and precedence relations. We propose a constraint programming approach for detailed ship refit planning at two granularity levels, daily and hourly schedule. The problem was modeled using the Cumulative global constraint, and the Solution-Based Phase Saving heuristic was used to speedup the search, thus achieving the industrialization goals. Based on the evaluation of seven realistic instances over three objectives, the heuristic strategy proved to be significantly faster to find better solutions than using a baseline search strategy. The method was integrated into Refit Optimizer, a cloud-based prototype solution that can import projects from Primavera P6 and optimize plans.
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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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