A review of inventory lot sizing review papers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to give a comprehensive review, summary, and discussion on inventory models that have appeared in the literature. During these past ten decades, no seminal paper reviewing the field of inventory lot sizing has even been published. This limitation has been identified in the literature by several researchers over the years, with the sheer volume of the number of published inventory lot sizing models acting as a factor which has limited a research endeavor to review the literature on inventory lot sizing models. Design/methodology/approach – This article reviews research on inventory lot size models and provides a review of previously published literature review papers on inventory models. Based on this initial review, the literature extending current research practices on inventory modeling in supply chains and in sustainable practices is presented. Directions for expanding research in these two areas are examined in light of concerns expressed in the historical use of inventory models and in light of a new inventory research paradigm. Findings – In our paper, we have adopted a novel strategy to overcome this limitation by focusing our review on a review of inventory lot sizing review papers. Originality/value – By adopting the methodology of reviewing published inventory review papers, we can contribute a comprehensive review of the inventory lot sizing literature that serves to provide in one paper a consolidation of inventory research that can serve as a single source to keep researchers up to date with the research developments in inventory lot sizing models. We also identify gaps in the field which could stimulate new research agendas in the areas of supply chain management and sustainable inventory practices.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".