MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972551986 · doi:10.1287/inte.2013.0716

Scotsburn Dairy Group Uses a Hierarchical Production Scheduling and Inventory Management System to Control Its Ice Cream Production

2014· article· en· W1972551986 on OpenAlexaff
Eldon A. Gunn, Corinne MacDonald, Andrea Friars, Glen Caissie

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperations researchProduction planningAggregate planningScheduling (production processes)ScheduleProduction (economics)SynchronizingTerm (time)Integer programmingOperations managementComputer scienceEngineeringEconomicsMicroeconomicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we discuss a hierarchical production planning approach to schedule ice cream production, a continuous batch production process with sequence-dependent setup times and highly seasonal demand. We use mixed-integer linear programming models to optimize production plans for long-, medium-, and short-term planning. The long-term model, the monthly model, is used to plan aggregate production and inventory levels for the year to meet demand each month at the lowest cost possible. The medium-term model, the weekly model, is used to disaggregate the long-term plan to minimize weekly setup and holding costs over a 13-week period. The short-term model, the daily model, is a detailed scheduling model that determines an optimal daily production sequence for the products and run lengths determined by the second model, while meeting the labor schedule defined by the first model for the upcoming production week. When used together, the three decision models produce feasible results at each stage, and short-term operations reflect the goals of the long-term plan. Synchronizing the model breakdown with Scotsburn’s management hierarchy provides support at each decision-making level. The hierarchical plan reduces costs, improves production efficiency, and creates better linkages between the decisions of each management level.

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)0.001
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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS Journal on Applied AnalyticsSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207