Investigating the collective impact of postponement, scrap, and external suppliers on multiproduct replenishing decision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the collective impact of postponement, scrap, and subcontracting standard components on the multiproduct replenishing decisions. Rapid response, desirable quality, and various goods guide the client’s demands in today’s competitive market. Therefore, many manufacturing firms search for alternative fabrication and outsourcing strategies during the production planning stage to satisfy the client’s expectations, minimize fabrication-inventory costs, and smoothen machine utilization. To effectively help producers meet today's client's needs and enhance their competitive advantage, we develop a two-stage multiproduct replenishing system incorporating scraps, standard parts subcontracting, commonality, and delayed differentiation. To reduce the production uptime, stage one has a hybrid fabrication process for the common components (i.e., a partial outsourcing strategy), and stage two manufactures the finished multiproduct. In-house fabrication processes in both stages are imperfect; a screening process detects and removes scraps to maintain the finished batch quality. We determine the cost-minimized operating cycle. The findings reveal the collective impact of postponement, scrap, and external suppliers on this multi-product replenishment problem and can be used to facilitate production planning and decision-making.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".