Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: We consider an intermediary’s problem of dynamically matching demand and supply of heterogeneous types in a periodic-review fashion. Specifically, there are two disjoint sets of demand and supply types, and a reward for each possible matching of a demand type and a supply type. In each period, demand and supply of various types arrive in random quantities. The platform decides on the optimal matching policy to maximize the expected total discounted rewards, given that unmatched demand and supply may incur waiting or holding costs, and will be fully or partially carried over to the next period. Academic/practical relevance: The problem is crucial to many intermediaries who manage matchings centrally in a sharing economy. Methodology: We formulate the problem as a dynamic program. We explore the structural properties of the optimal policy and propose heuristic policies. Results: We provide sufficient conditions on matching rewards such that the optimal matching policy follows a priority hierarchy among possible matching pairs. We show that those conditions are satisfied by vertically and unidirectionally horizontally differentiated types, for which quality and distance determine priority, respectively. Managerial implications: The priority property simplifies the matching decision within a period, and the trade-off reduces to a choice between matching in the current period and that in the future. Then the optimal matching policy has a match-down-to structure when considering a specific pair of demand and supply types in the priority hierarchy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.005 |
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".