MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284887612 · doi:10.1287/opre.2022.2301

Data Aggregation and Demand Prediction

2022· article· en· W4284887612 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

VenueOperations Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAggregate (composite)Cluster analysisData aggregatorBenchmark (surveying)Data setData miningStock (firearms)Flexibility (engineering)EconometricsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High accuracy in demand prediction allows retailers to effectively manage their inventory and mitigate stock-outs and excess supply. A typical retail setting involves predicting the demand for hundreds of items simultaneously, some with abundant historical data and others with scarce data. In “Data Aggregation and Demand Prediction,” Cohen, Zhang, and Jiao propose a novel practical method, called data aggregation with clustering (DAC), which balances the tradeoff between data aggregation and model flexibility. DAC empowers retailers to predict demand while optimally identifying the features that should be estimated at the item, cluster, and aggregate levels. Theoretically, DAC yields a consistent estimate, along with improved prediction errors relative to the benchmark that estimates a different model for each item. Practically, DAC yields a higher demand prediction accuracy relative to many common benchmarks using a real data set from a large online retailer.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.606
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.047 · 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