MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7081936066 · doi:10.11159/icmie25.145

Optimizing OEE in a Peruvian Fishmeal Factory Through TQM, TPM, and Standard Work: A Case Study

2025· article· en· W7081936066 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFactory (object-oriented programming)Fish mealProduction (economics)Sugar factory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Peruvian fishmeal industry faced persistent challenges from machinery failures, process variability, and lack of standardization, which limited its competitiveness.While previous studies explored TPM, TQM, and Standard Work individually, few addressed their combined application in fishmeal production-an existing research gap.This study addressed that gap by developing an integrated model to optimize the production of "Super Prime" fishmeal.The intervention focused on increasing equipment availability, reducing reprocessing, and standardizing key operational tasks.After implementation, OEE rose by 7.12%, MTBF increased by 7.5 hours, and MTTR decreased by 6.3 hours.The share of Super Prime fishmeal improved from 5% to 12%, and the cost-benefit ratio reached 8.83.These results provide practical insights for process-based industries seeking to enhance product quality and operational efficiency under resource constraints.The study offers a replicable framework for the fishery sector and highlights the potential for increased profitability through coordinated quality and maintenance strategies.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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 venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207