Exploring managerial insights through multi criteria decision making techniques in pharmacy inventory classification problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current research addresses the inventory classification problem of community pharmacies, which have a dual role as both a vital component of the pharmaceutical supply chain and a typical retail store. Despite the existing literature indicating that pharmacists may lack knowledge on inventory management, it seems that the MCIC literature is weak in explaining how pharmacists can benefit from MCDA techniques in all aspects. To bridge this gap, the study aims to demonstrate that pharmacists can utilize MCDA techniques to gain deeper insights beyond mere classification in the context of inventory management. Real-world data from a community pharmacy in Turkey was classified using the EDAS method. Sensitivity analysis was performed for MCDA inputs, about which pharmacists may lack information. Scenario findings based on criterion weights and threshold values offer important managerial implications for pharmacists. This study provides a critical contribution to the literature on inventory management in community pharmacies by highlighting the potential of MCDA techniques to support decision-making beyond mere classification. The sensitivity analysis also sheds light on areas where pharmacists may lack knowledge and suggests ways to address these gaps. Overall, the study underscores the need for pharmacists to have a deeper understanding of inventory management and highlights the potential benefits of MCDA techniques in addressing this challenge.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".