MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317669480 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.285

Inventory replenishment planning and staggering

2015· article· en· W2317669480 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsMathematical optimizationComputer sciencePareto principlePareto optimalPopulationHeuristicOperations researchOrder (exchange)Space (punctuation)Multi-objective optimizationMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is the first one to formulate the inventory replenishment problem as a bi-objective one where, in addition to minimizing the sum of order and inventory holding costs, we minimize the required storage space. Also, it develops two new solution methods, called the exploratory method (EM) and the two-population evolutionary algorithm (TPEA). Both methods generate near-optimal Pareto front solutions. As the literature does not provide any method to solve the considered problem, only the results of the two heuristics developed in this paper are compared. The results obtained suggest that both methods produce good Pareto near optimal solutions.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.251 · 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