Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper develops an inventory model that determines replenishment strategies for buyers facing situations in which sellers offer price‐discounting campaigns at random times as a way to drive sales or clear excess inventory. Specifically, the model deals with the inventory of a single item that is maintained to meet a constant demand over time. The item can be purchased at two different prices denoted high and low. We assume that the low price goes into effect at random points in time following an exponential distribution and lasts for a random length of time following another exponential distribution. We highlight a replenishment strategy that will lead to the lowest inventory holding and ordering costs possible. This strategy is to replenish inventory only when current levels are below a certain threshold when the low price is offered and the replenishment is to a higher order‐up‐to level than the one currently in use when inventory depletes to zero and the price is high. Our analysis provides new insight into the behavior of the optimal replenishment strategy in response to changes in the ratio of purchase prices together with changes in the ratio of the duration of a low‐price period to that of a high‐price period. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2007.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".