MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088618050 · doi:10.1142/s0217595908001651

INVENTORY LOT-SIZE MODELS UNDER TRADE CREDITS: A REVIEW

2008· review· en· W2088618050 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

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Operational Research · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageStrengths and weaknessesOrder (exchange)PaymentInflation (cosmology)EconomicsTrade creditOperations researchComputer scienceActuarial scienceBusinessEngineeringAccountingFinanceGovernment (linguistics)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the publication of the Goyal model in 1985, research on the modeling of inventory lot-size under trade credits has resulted in a body of literature. In this paper, we present a review of the advances in inventory literature under conditions of permissible delay in payments since 1985. We classify all related previous articles into five categories based on: (a) without deterioration, (b) with deterioration, (c) with allowable shortage, (d) linked to order quantity, and (e) with inflation. The motivations, extensions and weaknesses of various previous models have been discussed in brief to bring out pertinent information regarding model developments in the past two decades.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.158 · 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