Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the latest information technology, powerful retailers like Wal‐Mart have taken the lead in forging shorter replenishment‐cycles, automated supply systems with suppliers. With the objective to reduce cost, these retailers are directing suppliers to take full responsibility for managing stocks and deliveries. Suppliers' performance is measured according to how often inventory is shipped to the retailer, and how often customers are unable to purchase the product because it is out of stock. This emerging trend also implies that suppliers are absorbing a large part of the inventory and delivery costs and, therefore, must plan delivery programs including delivery frequency to ensure that the inherent costs are minimized. With the idea to incorporate this shift in focus, this paper looks at the problem facing the supplier who wants quicker replenishment at lower cost. In particular, we present a model that seeks the best trade‐off among inventory investment, delivery rates, and permitting shortages to occur, given some random demand pattern for the product. The process generating demand consists of two components: one is deterministic and the other is random. The random part is assumed to follow a compound Poisson process. Furthermore, we assume that the supplier may fail to meet uniform shipping schedules, and, therefore, uncertainty is present in delivery times. The solution to this transportationinventory problem requires determining jointly delivery rates and stock levels that will minimize transportation, inventory, and shortage costs. Several numerical results are presented to give a feel of the optimal policy's general behavior.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".