MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107705094 · doi:10.1287/msom.3.4.369.9967

Play It Again, Sam? Optimal Replacement Policies for a Motion Picture Exhibitor

2001· article· en· W2107705094 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueManufacturing & Service Operations Management · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersLuonnontieteiden ja Tekniikan Tutkimuksen ToimikuntaMitacs
KeywordsHeuristicsCommitMarkov decision processRevenueNormativeComputer scienceFilm industryProcess (computing)Operations researchRevenue managementMotion pictureQuality (philosophy)MicroeconomicsMarkov processBusinessEconomicsDatabaseArtificial intelligenceMovie theaterFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every week, motion picture exhibitors must decide whether to keep or replace the movies playing in their theaters in light of the past week's sales data. This decision is complex because of the dynamic decision environment, the uncertainty of demand, the complex revenue-sharing terms between the retailer and the distributor, the need to commit to new movies for several weeks, and the competitive release patterns of movies. We formulate this problem as a Markov Decision Process (MDP) model, using it to obtain replacement policies for the exhibitor. We examine the effect of differences in quality and quantity of available movies, and their respective release dates on the returns from model-based normative solutions. We also show that two practical heuristics are significantly outperformed by the optimal policy for the MDP model. We conclude by applying the model to industry data.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.231 · 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