MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177586706 · doi:10.52825/bis.v1i.57

Supporting an Expert-centric Process of New Product Introduction With Statistical Machine Learning

2021· article· en· W3177586706 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness Information Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBoosting (machine learning)Process (computing)Machine learningProduct (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceStatistical learningGradient boostingRandom forestMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industries that sell products with short-term or seasonal life cycles must regularly introduce new products. Forecasting the demand for New Product Introduction (NPI) can be challenging due to the fluctuations of many factors such as trend, seasonality, or other external and unpredictable phenomena (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic). Traditionally, NPI is an expertcentric process. This paper presents a study on automating the forecast of NPI demands using statistical Machine Learning (namely, Gradient Boosting and XGBoost). We show how to overcome shortcomings of the traditional data preparation that underpins the manual process. Moreover, we illustrate the role of cross-validation techniques for the hyper-parameter tuning and the validation of the models. Finally, we provide empirical evidence that statistical Machine Learning can forecast NPI demand better than experts.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.299 · 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