Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a literature review for inventory control of deteriorating items since 2018. A classification including 18 classes and 33 subclasses is offered to categorize inventory control models, constraints, and solution methods used in previous studies. Providing standard classes in this field, such as demand, deterioration, shortages, number of warehouses, and time value of money alongside new classes, for example, the type of model costs and supply chain, inventory constraints, number of supply chain levels, time horizon, lead time, considering multi-item models, preservation technology, financial conditions, non-instantaneous deteriorating items, environmental issues, and solution methods made this classification more comprehensive. A brief history and explanation are given to understand each class better, and related articles are grouped in these classes. The research gaps and a crucial aspect that paves the way for future research are presented in each category. A broad view of the future of this topic is provided, and exciting opportunities are highlighted for researchers to contribute to this field and inspire them to explore these potential areas of research. The potential for future research in this subject is vast and promising; this article offers numerous opportunities for researchers to make significant contributions. The results show that the best ways to extend this topic are using variable deterioration rates, costs, and demand functions, considering realistic assumptions, including allowable shortages with partial backlogging, two warehouses, inflation and discounts, preservation technology, uncertain lead time, and environmental issues. Developing cyclic (if possible), multi-item, and production models with financial conditions and various inventory constraints is an excellent way to develop existing models. Finally, solving the proposed models using exact methods to find the global answer is a great effort to contribute to this field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".