MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173118935

Optimal Ordering Decision and Incentives for Yield Improvement under Random Demand

2015· dissertation· en· W2173118935 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hangfei Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsIncentiveYield (engineering)MicroeconomicsEconomicsBusinessOperations researchMathematicsMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, we focus on the applications of incentive mechanism design in operations and supply chain management (OSCM). Most significant--and interesting--topics arising in OSCM are concerned with the management of relationships among supply chain members under asymmetric information. Since the incentive mechanism design based on the principal-agent model deals with asymmetric information in a satisfactory way, it has become an important tool in investigating OSCM-related asymmetric information problems. We start with an introduction in Chapter 1. In this chapter, we briefly describe the theory of incentive mechanism design and its applications to OSCM, and the organization structure of this thesis. In Chapter 2, we study the optimal wage scheme and effort level in a contracting problem where both the principal and the agent are risk-averse. This chapter is a starting point for analyzing the buyer's optimal ordering decision and incentives for yield improvement in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 3 investigates the buyer's optimal ordering decision and incentives for yield improvement in the setting of random yield for the critical component and uncertain demand for the finished product. In Chapter 4, we assume the supplier's effort and yield become continuous and study a continuous optimization problem where the buyer decides the optimal order quantities and incentives for yield improvement under random demand. Our thesis ends with a conclusion and addresses the future research in Chapter 5.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicSupply Chain and Inventory ManagementFrench-language works237,207