MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143127086 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n4p365

Challenges with Multi-Dimensional Inventory Classifications and Optimization

2015· article· en· W2143127086 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dinesh Dhoka, Lokeswara Y. Choudary

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInventory managementScheduleInventory controlComputer scienceAutomationOperations researchReorder pointInventory theoryProduct (mathematics)Point (geometry)Production (economics)Lead timeOperations managementProduction scheduleOrder (exchange)Production planningEconomic order quantityScheduling (production processes)BusinessEconomicsMathematicsMarketingMicroeconomicsSupply chainEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The level of automation in Inventory Management is increasing day by day. In ERPs various parameters have to be defined to achieve even simple levels of automation like Reorder-Point, Minimum Order Quantity, Lot-Size, Lead-Time etc. Inventory Management with today’s ERP systems can become simpler if the parameter settings of Materials Requirement Planning (MRP) and Master Production Schedule (MPS) are clearly understood and mapped. Various Inventory Classification methods are used like the ABC, XYZ, VED, FSN, HML, SDE etc. to group the products and maintain similar parameter settings for different group of products. Each parameter setting and product classifications have underlying assumptions. In our daily business the underlying assumptions may often be overlooked. The primary objective in this study is to highlight one of the assumptions taken for granted and to find an optimized solution for Inventory Classification for this assumption. This in turn can help enterprises be more flexible with better managed inventory.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.102 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207