MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054651473 · doi:10.1002/nav.10028

Managing waiting times of backordered demands in single‐stage (<i>Q</i>, <i>r</i>) inventory systems

2002· article· en· W2054651473 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

VenueNaval Research Logistics (NRL) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationLead timeQuasiconvex functionService (business)Operations researchMeasure (data warehouse)Upper and lower boundsService levelInventory controlMathematicsOperations managementEconomicsData miningStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.196 · 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