MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014497348 · doi:10.3390/en13071739

Energy Implications of Lot Sizing Decisions in Refrigerated Warehouses

2020· article· en· W3014497348 on OpenAlexafffund
Beatrice Marchi, Simone Zanoni, Mohamad Y. Jaber

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversità degli Studi di Brescia
KeywordsWarehouseSizingWork (physics)Energy consumptionSustainabilityQuality (philosophy)Energy (signal processing)Order pickingOrder (exchange)Supply chainEnvironmental economicsConsumption (sociology)Operations researchComputer scienceOperations managementBusinessEngineeringEconomicsMathematicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cold supply chains (CSCs) are responsible for preserving the quality of perishable goods in storage and transport. They consume significant amounts of energy to maintain cooling temperatures constant over time continuously and ubiquitously, which is affected by the surrounding environment and the users’ behavior. The storage filling level is one specific feature of refrigerated warehouses observed in practice: they are more energy efficient when kept full of items, reducing the space that air occupies. Inventory management models that consider energy consumption have received increasing attention recently due to an increase in stakeholders’ awareness of sustainability. Despite this interest, there is no work that jointly considers the effects of the filling level and the temperature inside the warehouse. This study, therefore, integrates those aspects into the economic order quantity model and finds the optimal lot size quantity that minimizes the total system cost, which is the performance measure used herein. It provides numerical results and brings some insights into the behavior of the model proposed.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicSupply Chain and Inventory ManagementFrench-language works237,207