Managing waiting times of backordered demands in single‐stage (<i>Q</i>, <i>r</i>) inventory systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a service constrained (Q, r) model that minimizes expected holding and ordering costs subject to an upper bound on the expected waiting time of demands that are actually backordered. We show that, after optimizing over r, the average cost is quasiconvex in Q for logconcave continuous lead time demand distributions. For logconcave discrete lead time demand distributions we find a single‐pass efficient algorithm based on a novel search stopping criterion. The algorithm also allows for bounds on the variability of the service measure. A brief numerical study indicates how the bounds on service impact the optimal average cost and the optimal (Q, r) choice. The discrete case algorithm can be readily adapted to provide a single pass algorithm for the traditional model that bounds the expected waiting time of all demands (backordered or not). © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 49: 557–573, 2002; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/nav.10028
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".