MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095947062

Comparison of Deterministic and Stochastic Production Planning Approaches in Sawmills by Integrating Design of Experiments and Monte-

2012· article· en· W7095947062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction planningProduction (economics)ScarcityKey (lock)Stochastic programmingOrder (exchange)Seven Management and Planning ToolsCapacity planning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

iii Forest industry is one of the key economic initiatives in Quebec (Canada). This industry has recently faced some obstacles, such as the scarcity of raw material, higher competitiveness in the market and new obligations applied in North America regarding sustainable development. These problems force lumber industries to improve their efficiency and become more service sensitive, in order to ensure the on time demand fulfillment. To achieve the goals aforesaid, one solution is to integrate the uncertainties more appropriately into production planning models. Traditional production planning approaches are based on deterministic models which in fact, ignore the uncertainties. A stochastic production planning approach is an alternative which models the uncertainties as different scenarios. Our goal is to compare the effectiveness of deterministic and stochastic approaches in sawing unit of sawmills on a rolling planning horizon. The comparison is performed under different circumstances in terms of length of planning horizon, re-planning frequency, and demand characteristics defined by its average and standard deviation. The design of experiments method is used as a basis for performing the comparison and the experiments are

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207