MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162205307 · doi:10.1287/opre.2014.1262

Technical Note—A Risk- and Ambiguity-Averse Extension of the Max-Min Newsvendor Order Formula

2014· article· en· W2162205307 on OpenAlexaff
Qiaoming Han, Donglei Du, Luis F. Zuluaga

Bibliographic record

VenueOperations Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewsvendor modelAmbiguityEconomic order quantityProfit (economics)Risk aversion (psychology)Ambiguity aversionStandard deviationOrder (exchange)EconomicsMathematical economicsMathematicsExpected utility hypothesisEconometricsComputer scienceMicroeconomicsStatisticsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scarf's max-min order formula for the risk-neutral and ambiguity-averse newsvendor problem is a classical result in the field of inventory management. In this article, we extend Scarf's formula by deriving an analogous closed-form order formula for the risk- and ambiguity-averse newsvendor problem. Specifically, we provide and analyze the newsvendor order quantity that maximizes the worst-case expected profit versus risk trade-off (risk-averse) when only the mean and standard deviation of the product's demand distribution are known (ambiguity-averse), and the risk is measured by the standard deviation of the newsvendor's profit. We provide both analytical and numerical results to illustrate the combined effect of considering risk aversion and ambiguity aversion in computing the newsvendor order.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations46
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOperations ResearchSame topicSupply Chain and Inventory ManagementFrench-language works237,207