MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361186649 · doi:10.1117/12.2672665

Demand forecasting in SCM for automobile industry based on time-series modeling

2023· article· en· W4361186649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jingyi Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageProfitability indexDemand forecastingAutomotive industryProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceProduction (economics)Time seriesCluster analysisSupply chainSupply and demandOperations researchTerm (time)Order (exchange)Supply chain managementBusinessEconomicsEngineeringMarketingArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMicroeconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Supply Chain Management (SCM), product classification and demand forecasting are crucial pillars to ensure companies to have production in the right category and quantity for long-term profitability. Due to COVID-19 from 2019, the automobile industry has been seriously negatively affected as the demand dropped dramatically. Therefore, it is necessary to make reasonable product classification and accurate demand forecasting to facilitate automobile companies in SCM to reduce unpopular product manufacture and unnecessary storage costs. In this paper, the Canada automobile market has been chosen with the period from 1946 to 2022. To classify a number of different types of motor vehicles into several categories with general characteristics, K-means Clustering method is applied. With the seasonal patterns and random generated features for auto sales, the time series models ARIMA and SARIMA are adopted for demand forecasting. According to the analysis, the automobiles fitting in the category with high demand and low price are valuable for further production. In addition, SARIMA Model is more accurate and fits better than ARIMA Model for both the training and test datasets for long-term prediction. The classification and forecasting results shed light on guiding manufacturers to adjust production schemes and ensuring auto dealers to predict more accurate sales in order to optimize the strategic planning.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207