MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378965569 · doi:10.18280/jesa.560206

A Supply Chain Inventory Model for a Deteriorating Material under a Finite Planning Horizon with the Carbon Tax and Shortage in All Cycles

2023· article· en· W4378965569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nitin Kumar Mishra, Ranu Ranu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageSupply chainTime horizonBusinessCarbon taxNatural resource economicsOperations managementEconomicsFinanceGreenhouse gasGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have framed an inventory replenishment model under a finite planning horizon in which replenishment cycle time and replenishment cycle length are different and don't repeat.The finite planning horizon for different replenishment times and cycle lengths is a real-life scenario.Nowadays, every manufacturing industry wants to achieve maximum profit at a low cost.It is very difficult to maintain the optimal level of inventory, total cost, replenishment time, and replenishment cycle.Along with the health of people, increasing carbon emission also has a dangerous effect on today's business environment.Therefore, this article analyses an optimal inventory replenishment policy and carbon emission due to deteriorating material and refrigeration while taking into account time, emissiondependent, and inventory-dependent quadratic demand.Materials deterioration affects a large and varied spectrum of business.Therefore, Material that suffers deterioration is considered.Shortage, some lost sales, and partial backlogging are also considered.Backlogging is dependent on the frequency of the waiting period for the next replenishment over a given finite time horizon and fluctuating replenishment cycle.The model has been developed theoretically.Also, a mathematical formulation has been obtained to find the optimal solution to the problem.Following the algorithm, a numerical illustration and a comparative evaluation are explained, along with a sensitivity analysis of each parameter.The tabular and graphical representations of sensitivity analysis were addressed using the Mathematica application version 12.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Européen des Systèmes AutomatisésSame topicSustainable Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207