MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037315850 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2020.6.001

A postponement model for multi-item replenishment decision considering overtime, commonality, and quality reassurance

2020· article· en· W3037315850 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuan-Shyi Peter Chiu, Victoria Chiu, Yunsen Wang, Ming-Hon Hwang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
KeywordsPostponementOvertimeQuality (philosophy)Operations managementOperations researchComputer scienceBusinessEconomicsEngineeringLabour economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study develops a postponement model for the multi-item replenishment decision featuring commonality, an overtime strategy, and product quality reassurance.A single machine is used to meet the steady demand for multiple products wherein product commonality exists among these end products.The proposed postponement model assumes that all pertinent common parts are fabricated in Stage 1 and the finished products are sequentially fabricated in Stage 2. Random nonconformance rates are associated with both fabrication stages, the repairable nonconforming common parts are separated from scrap, and reworking in each cycle helps ensure product quality for each completed batch.An overtime strategy is used to reduce the lengthy fabrication and rework times for common parts.Mathematical analyses and derivation allow us to obtain the total system costs.The optimization method helps find the optimal replenishment decision.We provide a numerical illustration to show (1) how our model works; (2) the individual impact of the system features (e.g., the overtime factor, commonality in terms of the common part completion rate and its relative value, and the issues pertaining to scrap/rework) on the optimal decision, utilization, and the total system cost; and (3) the collective influence of system features on the highlighted problem.This proposed decision-support model helps production managers achieve the operating goals of lowering total system expenses and cutting the length of the production cycle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicProduct Development and CustomizationFrench-language works237,207