MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101656720 · doi:10.5555/1162708.1162961

Lot-sizing within capacity-constrained manufacturing systems using time-phased planning

2005· article· en· W2101656720 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

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingCapacity planningQueueing theoryComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Production (economics)Build to orderDue dateMaterial requirements planningOperations researchMathematical optimizationIndustrial engineeringEngineeringOperations managementBusinessMathematicsEconomicsQueueFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on lot sizing has mostly assumed single echelon systems. Even when multiple echelon systems have been used, capacity constraints are seldom considered. However, in manufacturing capacity constraints can lead to significant queuing effects. Commonly used lot sizing policies like Lot-For-Lot (LFL) and Period Order Quantity (POQ) do not take these effects into account. This research compares these policies with a Fixed Order Quantity (FOQ) policy, within which lot sizes are based on minimizing estimated lot flowtimes at capacity-constrained machines. Simulation is used to study a small production and distribution network using time-phased planning. Results show that the FOQ policy performs better than both LFL and POQ when inventory levels and delivery performance are of concern.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.220 · 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