MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031832347 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2010.03.007

Supplier selection and order lot sizing using dynamic programming

2010· article· en· W2031832347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahdi Moqri, Mohammad Moshref‐Javadi, Seyed Ahmad Yazdian

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingSelection (genetic algorithm)Order (exchange)Build to orderMathematical optimizationDynamic programmingComputer scienceOperations researchEngineeringProduction (economics)MathematicsBusinessEconomicsMicroeconomicsArtificial intelligenceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a multi-period integrated supplier selection and order lot sizing problem where a single buyer plans to purchase a single product in multiple periods from several qualified suppliers who are able to provide the required product with the needed quality in a timely manner. Product price and order cost differs among different suppliers. Buyer's demand for the product is deterministic and varies for different time periods. The problem is to determine how much product from which supplier must be ordered in each period such that buyer's demand is satisfied without violating some side constraints. We have developed a mathematical programming model to deal with this problem, and proposed a forward dynamic programming approach to obtain optimal solutions in reasonable amount of time even for large scale problems. Finally, a numerical example is conducted in which solutions obtained from the proposed dynamic programming algorithm is compared with solutions from the branch-and-bound algorithm. Through the numerical example we have shown the efficiency of our algorithm.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics OptimizationFrench-language works237,207