Systematic literature review on adjustable robust counterpart for internet shopping optimization problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet Shopping Optimization Problem (ISOP) is the application of optimization to online shopping activities of all complexity. The ISOP is useful for consumers in minimizing the cost of purchasing goods. This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed papers based on ISOP topics by utilizing the R application program in the mapping. Overall, 101 papers (233 authors) in the Scopus database have used ISOP topics with research growth of 11.61% annually. The researcher presents a network of citations from productive authors, the impact of research, trends in terms that have been used, and shows a collaborative network of citations. Finally, the researcher presents the thematic analysis of the papers that apply the ISOP as a research topic and shows how the research forms clusters based on analytical solutions and numerical simulations that generate suggestions in finding the latest topics in the ISOP study. Another target for this paper is to produce review analysis results through Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA). Through bibliometric and PRISMA analysis, it was found that the latest method in completing ISOP optimization is the ARC method. The ARC method in the ISOP is still little published among researchers in the world.
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 | 0.014 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".