Analysis of optimization models under different approaches to deal with uncertainty regarding pre-disaster planning in food bank supply chains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Pre-positioning is a crucial choice in pre-disaster humanitarian logistics planning that consists of deciding in advance how much aid and where should it be located to enable effective and prompt operations in the case of an emergency. To support managers making such decisions, we propose four mathematical formulations that, considering the uncertainty on the demand to satisfy, seek to optimize aid prepositioning (before the event) and further distribution (after the event) in order to minimize unmet demand (MUD). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and compare the performance of these formulations on a real case to discuss when and why should each approach be applied.Design/methodology/approach: The two first formulations adopt the cardinality-constrained (CC) approach to handle uncertainty. These formulations differ in their objective functions, the first formulation’s objective seeks to MUD, whilst the second incorporates equity in the way that demand is satisfied. The two remaining formulations are scenario-based (SB) and as in the previous two formulations, seek to MUD with and without equity considerations, respectively.Findings: Applying our formulations to a case study, we compare the differences between the solutions produced by the proposed formulations and the solutions that would have been produced without uncertainty (perfect information) to have a better understanding of their performance and their behavior. A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each model is provided to help managers choose the model that best suits their needs.Originality/value: The formulations are applied to a case study where a food bank is faced with the arrival of a hurricane in Mexico. As far as our knowledge, it is the first work in literature to deal with humanitarian logistics under a cardinality-constrained approach.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".