MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101926044 · doi:10.1109/rams.2007.328069

Joint Optimization of Inventory Control and Maintenance Policy

2007· article· en· W2101926044 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Li, Ming J. Zuo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreventive maintenanceCorrective maintenanceInventory controlSafety stockControl (management)Computer scienceProduction (economics)Reliability engineeringOptimization problemInventory theoryOperations researchHolding costWork (physics)Operations managementEngineeringBusinessEconomicsSupply chainMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inventory optimization attempts to find the distribution of inventory that best meets specified cost and availability goals. When equipment availability is considered, most reported work treats the impact of preventive maintenance (PM) and corrective maintenance (CM) on the production system as a given cost corresponding to the loss resulting from unmet demand. This paper treats the impact of PM and CM on the production system as variables that affect the cost of inventory control. Furthermore, despite the wealth of literature in the fields of inventory control optimization and maintenance strategy optimization, there are few reported studies of interaction between these two kinds of optimization problems. For this reason, the other main objective of this paper is to jointly analyze optimal production control and maintenance activities, in addition to inventory control optimization. A simulation model is developed to find the optimal number of major failures and the optimal level of safety stock. The results show that joint optimization of maintenance strategy and production control policy leads to a significant reduction in total system operating costs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207