MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905468115 · doi:10.32535/jicp.v1i1.144

COMPARING FORECASTING METHOD IN THE DREAM CARD MALANG COMPANY USING FORECASTING SEASONAL FORECASTING METHODS

2018· article· en· W2905468115 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamProduction (economics)Factory (object-oriented programming)Quarter (Canadian coin)Demand forecastingOperations researchBusinessComputer scienceMarketingEconomicsEngineeringGeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the aspects of forecasting method of production that are efficient and effective within a book industrial. The purposes of the paper are to searching and comparing the forecasting analysis methods of production on Dream Card Factory Malang which included in a book industry along with analyzing the factors which influence production in the company. Qualitative data were acquired where-by interviews with the owner of the Dream Card Company Malang or with workers from production sector of the company. Quantitative data were acquired by observing the result of annual production report or quarter production report on the Dream Card Company Malang. The contribution of this paper offers is compatible forecasting method for the Dream Card Company. Keywords – Annual, Compatible, Forecasting Method, Influence, Quarter

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.180 · 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