An integrated vendor–buyer replenishment policy for deteriorating items with fuzzy environment and resource constraint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different from previous researches, our study considers a perishable item with collaborative vendor–buyer ordering policy and finite replenishment rate. Furthermore, due to the importance of inventory and capital investment in today’s fuzzy marketing environments, researches in fuzzy collaborative inventory models have become very popular research in recent decades. Therefore, in our integrated model with deteriorating inventory replenishment policy, we construct the crisp/fuzzy models with inventory investment constraints with fuzzy environments. Two different fuzzy decision-making methods are used to formulate the models. Convex fuzzy programming (CFP) method is used to maximize the weighted sum for each achievement level of the joint cost and constraints. An inverse weighted fuzzy non-linear programming (IWFNLP) is then proposed to satisfy the decision-maker’s desirable achievement level of service. A heuristic algorithm with mixed-integer hybrid differential evolution (MIHDE) is developed to solve the crisp/fuzzy models. Numerical examples and sensitivity analysis are developed to investigate the effectiveness of the proposed method in the fuzzy environment. From the numerical analysis, it can be seen that the IWFNLP method is a more efficient decision-making tool than the CFP method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".