MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024545836 · doi:10.1504/ijor.2010.036288

Supply chain network design with considerations for modular assembly

2010· article· en· W2024545836 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Operational Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chainPurchasingModular designSupply chain networkComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)Integer programmingSupply chain managementOperations researchOperations managementBusinessMathematicsEngineeringAlgorithmMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a supply chain optimisation model that simultaneously considers sourcing decisions for each part in a complex multi-level bill of materials (BOM) but decides on which should be assembled into subassemblies or modules. Indeed, some parts in the BOM are flexible in the sense that they can be grouped with other parts or subassemblies to form modules. The problem is to find the composition of the modules and the assignment of modules and parts to subcontractors while minimising the overall supply chain cost. The problem considered is one faced by a jet engine manufacturer when designing its multi-echelon, multi-period, multi-product supply chain network with deterministic demand. The mixed integer programming model considers multiple sourcing where the number of parts sourced from a business partner must exceed a lower bound as dictated by purchasing contracts. Computational results are presented for different scenarios allowing the combined analysis of supply chain design and supplier relationships.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.279 · 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