MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985184062 · doi:10.1111/dsji.12194

Newsvendor Game: A Behavioral Exercise in Decision Making under Risk

2019· article· en· W2985184062 on OpenAlexaff
Chirag Surti, Anthony Celani

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsSheridan College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewsvendor modelComputer scienceEconomic order quantityCognitionSupply chainRisk aversion (psychology)Economic shortageExpected utility hypothesisPsychologyEconomicsMarketingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The newsvendor problem is a classic problem of decision making under risk that is taught in traditional Operations and Supply Chain Management classes as a single‐period inventory problem. We discuss the following three pedagogical points of interest to any instructor tasked with teaching this topic: a) why the newsvendor model is relevant in this day and age; b) how to make better sense of the newsvendor problem for students; and c) how to easily implement and administer an active learning exercise in either a traditional classroom, or an online setting. This active learning exercise is a quick, effective, and meaningful way of demonstrating a variety of concepts related to the newsvendor problem that include: a) the rational economic method of calculating optimal order quantity, b) the inherent risk in forecasting and ordering decisions as they relate to surpluses and shortages; and c) the cognitive limitations in decision making that often result in irrational but predictable decision‐making behavior as demonstrated by empirical research on newsvendor behavior. This exercise can help instructors and students transition into broader discussions on human behavior, cognitive limitations, and perceptions of risk. Overall, it should provide the student with an improved understanding of the operational and behavioral issues associated with decision making under risk.

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)0.003
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 score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Sciences Journal of Innovative EducationSame topicSupply Chain and Inventory ManagementFrench-language works237,207