MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986395670 · doi:10.1177/0037549713479405

Call-type dependence in multiskill call centers

2013· article· en· W1986395670 on OpenAlexaff
Amel Jaoua, Pierre L’Ecuyer, L. D. Delorme

Bibliographic record

VenueSIMULATION · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoolingCopula (linguistics)Merge (version control)Computer scienceEconometricsTail dependenceMultivariate statisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect on multiskill call-center performance of pooling dependent call types is investigated. For this purpose, a copula-based modeling approach is used to provide multivariate models that take into account the call types’ asymmetric dependence structures found in empirical data. Then, the realistic input models of the call-type-dependent arrival processes are used in a simulation study to explore the sensitivity of the pooling decision to this dependence. We find that the widely used assumption of independence, as well as the misspecification of the dependence structure, can lead to substantial misestimation of call-center performance. This demonstrates the importance of modeling call-type dependence in stochastic simulation studies of call centers. We also show, through case studies, that pooling two asymmetric left-tail-dependent call types is more likely to lead to low agents occupancy; whereas the presence of right-tail dependence structure increases the risk of service-level shortfall. This work provides new managerial insights to improve decision making in determining which call types to merge in the same pool in multiskill call centers.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIMULATIONSame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207