Improving Supply Chain Profit through Reverse Factoring: A New Multi-Suppliers Single-Vendor Joint Economic Lot Size Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supply chain finance has been gaining attention in theory and practice. A company’s financial position affects its performance and survivability in dynamic and volatile markets. Those that have weak financial performance are vulnerable when operating in environments that are uncertain and financially unstable. Companies adopt various solutions and techniques to manage, effectively and efficiently, the flow of money to and from its suppliers and buyers. Reverse factoring is an innovative technique in supply chain financing. This paper develops a joint economic lot size model where a vendor coordinates operational and financial decisions with its multiple suppliers through the establishment of a reverse factoring arrangement. The creditworthy vendor systematically informs a financial institution (e.g., bank) of payment obligations to selected suppliers, enabling the latter to borrow against the value of the relevant accounts receivable at low interest (borrowing) rates. The paper also presents a numerical example and a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the behavior of the model and to compare the economic and operational performance of a supply chain with and without a reverse factoring agreement. The results show that the establishment of a reverse factoring agreement within the supply chain improves the economic performance and impacts on the operational decisions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".