Evaluation of sourcing contracts in wood supply procurement using simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Procurement operations in forest companies are exposed to various risks, which may increase procurement costs. Examples of risks are the contract's unreliability and contract breach. Deterministic planning models cannot perfectly reflect the complexities of real‐world applications in the presence of sourcing risks when the future is uncertain. In practice, forest industries use contracts to guarantee the wood supply. Monthly forecasts are prepared for the delivery volume and are primarily based on the experience of procurement staff and the total volume of contracts. Missed deliveries in the contracts lead to a mismatch between the supply and demand for wood fiber and increase the costs of procurement as a result of high inventory costs or expensive purchases from the open market. Previous studies on simulating the impact of sourcing risks on procurement operations have been conducted; however, none have addressed the selection of procurement contracts in the presence of sourcing risks. In forest industry, numerous suppliers are available with sourcing contracts. Each contract possesses its own characteristics such as flexibility, volume, schedule, and price of delivery. A Monte Carlo simulation approach is implemented to analyze the behavior of a deterministic planning approach. Random events are generated by formulating different types of sourcing risks, having either short‐ or long‐term impact. The simulation is embedded with a deterministic planning model in each period. Results showed that management of sourcing risks is easier with flexible contracts than with fixed contracts, despite their higher purchasing cost.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".