MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922019266 · doi:10.1561/0200000092

Disruption Risk Management in Serial Multi-Echelon Supply Chains

2019· article· en· W2922019266 on OpenAlexaff
Florian Lücker, Sunil Chopra, Ralf W. Seifer

Bibliographic record

VenueFoundations and Trends® in Technology Information and Operations Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chain risk managementSupply chainRisk managementBusinessOperations managementSupply chain managementComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Service managementEconomicsFinanceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research focuses on managing supply chain disruption risk using inventory and reserve capacity in serial multi-echelon supply chains. The research problem is to determine the optimal risk mitigation inventories and reserve capacities when product transformation occurs at each echelon. Disruptions at each echelon are modeled as a random process. We derive insights on the optimal location and quantity of risk mitigation inventory (RMI) and reserve capacity held in serial supply chains. We show that the downstream echelon typically holds at least as much RMI as the upstream echelon. At the same time, it is often optimal to hold additionally more reserve capacity downstream than upstream. These results hold under the assumption that inventory and reserve capacity holding costs are larger downstream than upstream. Our research also suggests that RMI is preferred to reserve capacity as a risk mitigation lever in long serial supply chains, i.e., in supply chains with a large number of echelons. This research problem is inspired by a risk management problem of a leading pharmaceutical company.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoundations and Trends® in Technology Information and Operations ManagementSame topicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207