MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281297879 · doi:10.1016/j.rcradv.2022.200088

The effect of demand forecasting choices on the circularity of production systems: a framework and case study

2022· article· en· W4281297879 on OpenAlexaff
Marina Hernandes de Paula e Silva, Luana Bonome Message Costa, Fernando José Gómez Paredes, Jayson Wilson Barretti, Diogo Aparecido Lopes Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueResources Conservation & Recycling Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsCégep de Lévis
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsProduction (economics)Demand forecastingProduction planningSelection (genetic algorithm)Relevance (law)EconometricsRaw materialComputer scienceSupply and demandOperations researchRegressionFlow (mathematics)EconomicsEnvironmental economicsOperations managementMicroeconomicsMathematicsStatisticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing Circular Economy systems needs previous decisions that depend on Planning and Operation decisions. One of these decisions relates to the forecasting demand method, because it scales the needs of the production flow and the necessary resources. This study investigates how the selection of forecasting methods affects the circularity of production systems and shows a case study of particleboard manufacturers. Scenarios with different parameters were tested. Results showed an increase in the Material Flow Analysis (MFA) indicators between the methods Linear Regression initiation (HW-LR) vs. Extended Additive Holt-Winters (EAWH) and variations in the MCI when restrictions on supply capacity are added in terms of recycled raw material use. Also, a positive correlation was found between the error rate in demand forecasting and MCI. These results highlight the relevance of choosing the forecast method due to its impact on production planning activities and environmental performance toward a more circular production system.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources Conservation & Recycling AdvancesSame topicSustainable Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207