MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893852768 · doi:10.1504/ijor.2018.10016373

Impact of inventory cannibalisation on a retailer selling substitutes

2018· article· en· W2893852768 on OpenAlexaff
Elkafi Hassini, Chirag Surti, P.L. Abad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Operational Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStockoutSubstitution (logic)Economic shortageBusinessProfit (economics)MicroeconomicsProduct (mathematics)Inventory managementRevenueSupply chainSpillover effectEconomicsCommerceMarketingOperations managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reasons customers substitute, are well understood from an economic perspective. However, its exact impact on retailer's inventory and profit is not, when customers substitute as a result of a shortage. Shortage of one product may lead to demand spillover, due to substitution, resulting in shortages for the second product. We call this inventory cannibalisation. This is a store level, retailer observed phenomenon that is a direct result of customers' willingness to switch between substitutes due to stockout of one product. Many retailers are experiencing stockouts related to substitution, resulting in a significant loss of revenue. We model a retailer's selling two substitutes, facing price-sensitive stochastic demand. Our model incorporates cannibalisation explicitly and generalises the existing literature on inventory substitution. We perform analytical and numerical analysis to study the impact of stockout-based substitution and the related inventory cannibalisation on retailer's decisions. We find that the impact of cannibalisation is felt most acutely by the retailer for products with low degree of substitution.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Operational ResearchSame topicSupply Chain and Inventory ManagementFrench-language works237,207