Toward the optimization of cell operator productivity in computer integrated manufacturing

Computer integrated manufacturing (CIM) has been seen as the answer to maintaining the lead in American productivity. The cell operator was seen as being critical to the success of CIM. The design of the operator\u27s job was seen as very important. As manufacturing engineers design cell jobs, including the roles and tasks, with the operators, it was believed important for the engineer to know what motivated the cell operator. However, past studies of supervisors and their subordinates have shown that supervisors are unable to predict the importance of the elements of job enrichment of the subordinates. It was questioned whether the engineers could predict the level of desire for elements of job enrichment of the cell operators. The problems of this study were (a) determining the elements of job enrichment and their level of importance to the cell operators, (b) determining the predictions of engineers of the importance of the elements of job enrichment for cell operators, and (c) determining if there were significant differences between the views of operators and engineers of the elements of job enrichment of the cell operator. The purposes of this study were (a) to establish and information base on elements of job enrichment for the cell operator and (b) to strongly encourage the engineers who design cell operator jobs to consider motivation information in job design. Samples of cell operators and manufacturing engineers were surveyed by mail simultaneously using a revised Job Diagnostic Survey (RJDS) and a revised Job Rating Form (RJRF). It was found that engineers had a significant inability to predict the level of desire association with 9 of the 11 potential elements of job enrichment (p \u3c .01 for seven items, p \u3c .02 for one item, and p \u3c .05 for one item). In comparing responses of both groups, no significant difference was found for high respect and fair treatment from the supervisor and great job security. Importantly, the would like growth need strength, one measure of a worker\u27s state of mind which affects productivity, was found to be significantly different (p \u3c .01) between the views provided by engineers and operators. The predictions of core job characteristics of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback from the job itself were rated similarly by operators and engineers. Also, the Motivating Potential Score (MPS) was found to be significantly different (p \u3c .01)between the predictions of the groups. the MPS is a measure of the ability of a job to support the efforts of a motivated worker. The apparent inconsistencies between engineers being able to predict core job characteristics while being unable to predict would like growth need strength and motivating potential score was attributed to two study resultants. One resultant was the engineers\u27 appreciation of the role of motivation in the cell operator\u27s job and the second resultant was the engineers do not appreciate their roles in facilitating motivation through job enrichment in job design. It was concluded that the engineers as a group need to obtain the help of job enrichment and motivation specialists to design work while they simultaneously should pursue a better understanding of the role of motivation to the worker. Although the engineers\u27 predictions were complementary of the cell operators, the high scale responses and the high degree of cohesiveness of the cell operators in selecting the responses as a group provided the significant differences. Also, the operators\u27 results indicated that it is likely that incorporating enrichment factors into job design would contribute to increased productivity

Composite measure phrases: Odds, scores, flavors of scales, and the taxonomy of MPs

Purely numerical measure phrases (MPs) like three or two thirds, which lack a unit term, are often construed as denoting degrees on a single numerical scale. This paper examines an apparently unrecognized class of complex purely numerical MPs such as two in three and six to one, which we term COMPOSITE MPS. Such MPs demonstrate, we argue, that mathematically equivalent MPs aren’t always equivalent linguistically and that different purely mathematical MPs refer to degrees on different and incommensurable scales. Indeed, some, such as sports scores, seem to refer irreducibly to tuples or pluralities of degrees. We classify composite MPs into three varieties, each of which requires a distinct analysis

Ranges: composite measure phrases, modified numerals, and choice functions

Range expressions such asbetween 3 and 8,from 3 to 8, and3 through 8 resemble modified numerals such asat least 3and have sometimes been mentioned under that rubric. This paper shows that they are crucially different in their distribution, the readings available to them, and their behavior with respect to quantifiers, and more generally that they have an intricate grammar of their own. We distinguish three classes of readings they can receive: singleton punctual readings, on which they often give rise to ignorance inferences; set punctual readings, which arise chiefly in the scope of quantifiers; and interval readings, where the range is interpreted exhaustively. We propose an analysis on which range expressions denote choice functions over degrees, which can in the right circumstances be parameterized

Twice versus two times in phrases of comparison

The interaction of factor phrases--things like "half", "twice", and "three times"--with degree constructions such as comparatives (i.e., comparisons of the form "-er" or "more...than") and equatives (comparisons of the form "as...as") is an area that has seldom been touched upon. While much has been written about comparatives in general, and some has been written about adverbial versions of these factor phrases (in sentences such as "John went to the store twice today"), degree-related factor phrases have been largely neglected. In particular, the distinction between factor phrases like "twice", which combine only with equatives, and phrases like "two times", which combine with both equatives and comparatives, has been overlooked. I will thus be examining these factor phrases as they relate to degree constructions. I will argue that for many factor phrases, like "twice" and "half", Bierwisch (1989)'s prediction that they interact only with equatives holds true, while in cases of the form "n times" this prediction breaks down. I will also argue that factor phrases like "twice" involve a maximality operator, while factor phrases like "two times" simply involve an existential operator.Thesis (M.A.)--Michigan State University. Linguistics, 2011Includes bibliographical references (pages 36-38

Factor phrases : the semantics of multiplicative modification of events, degrees, and nominals, and the grammar of arithmetic

Factor phrases - modifiers such as "twice" or "three times" - are objects that show up cross-categorially, and yet their semantics remains largely neglected, with virtually no work done on them. This dissertation thus redresses the balance, examining factor phrases in three different domains: the verbal domain ("Floyd walked the dog three times"), the adjectival domain ("Floyd is three times as tall as Clyde"), and the nominal domain ("Floyd has twice Clyde's wisdom"). I argue that while the verbal form is a type of event counter, as described by Landman (2004), the adjectival and nominal cases are instead modifiers of type : a kind of modifier called a ratio degree. I show how these ratio degrees interact with degree morphemes such as "as" and "-er", including explaining why, in English, "Floyd is three times as tall as Clyde" and "Floyd is three times taller than Clyde" mean the same thing, despite the meanings of "as" and "-er" not being equivalent. This multiplicative use also extends into the verbal domain, with sentences such as "Floyd walked the dog three times as many times as Clyde did", and we see that ratio degrees also work successfully in this domain. The use of ratio degrees is then extended to the nominal domain, with a number of novel observations about the various kinds of nouns that can occur (mass, count, etc.) and their interactions with factor phrases. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of basic arithmetic, including a detailed syntactic and semantic analysis of basic arithmetic phrases such as "Three times seven is twenty-one" and "Fourteen divided by two is seven" -- an area that has been almost completely neglected. I show that these sentences still follow the same basic syntactic rules as the rest of natural language, and that consequently we can use the tools of natural language to provide a semantics for these basic arithmetic operations.Thesis (Ph. D.)--Michigan State University. Linguistics, 2019Includes bibliographical references (pages 199-207

Percentages, Relational Degrees, and Degree Constructions

Comparatives and equatives are usually assumed to differ only in that comparatives require that one degree be greater than another, while equatives require that it be at least as great. Unexpectedly, though, the interpretation of percentage measure phrases differs fundamentally between the constructions. This curious asymmetry is, we suggest, revealing. It demonstrates that comparatives and equatives are not as similar as one might have thought. We propose an analysis of these facts in which the interpretation of percentage phrases follows straightforwardly from standard assumptions enriched with two additional ones: that percentage phrases denote "relational degrees" (type ) and that the equative morpheme is uninterpreted.

Two types of degree nominalizations: Degree concepts and qualities

Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2017) propose that in many languages, gradable predication is fundamentally about not degrees but qualities qua portions of an abstract substance, like wisdom or beauty, that an individual can be said to possess. Both notions—qualities and degrees—are crucial, we propose, to understanding an important distinction between two varieties of degree nominalization in English (e.g. height in Ingo is Bertha’s height vs tallness in Ingo has Bertha’s tallness). Building on Bochnak (2013) and Gobeski (2019), we marshal a range of unnoticed or under-noticed contrasts that we argue show that some nominalizations denote qualities and others denote what we’ll call \u27degree concepts\u27, which are intensionalized degrees

Safety lockout adapter and coupling member used therefor

A safety lockout adapter is formed of two coupling members. Each coupling member is adapted to couple with another corresponding coupling member of substantially similar configuration for locking-out power disconnects or fluid line disconnects. When connecting the members to the power disconnect handle, a worker must use both hands. Each coupling member comprises a substantially rigid and planar member having opposing front and rear edges and opposing side edges defining front and rear portions. The front portion includes on one of the side edges an arcuate portion extending inwardly to form a substantially concave cut-out and a hook portion defined by the front edge and projecting toward the side from the front of the concave cut-out. Means positioned along the side edge opposite the arcuate cut-out holds together two coupling members when reversed and coupled in overlapping registry with each other. The rear portion of each coupling member has a plurality of holes therein which are positioned to align with the holes of the other coupling member when both members are coupled together to permit padlocks to be inserted through the aligned holes