Predicting production costs in procurement logistics: A comparison of OLS regression and neural networks in a Peruvian paper company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research work is to evaluate the use of statistical tools, specifically Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and with the help of these tools to be able to independently and effectively predict the costs. of production in the context of supply logistics in the Peruvian paper industry. Both models that turn out to be different in their analysis, however, turn out to be complementary for a more exact and precise result, highlighting the ANNs for their superior performance in the precision of the evaluated metrics, where they managed to achieve an RMSE of 0.0171 and a MAE of 0.0122 compared to the OLS statistical model that achieved an RMSE of 0.0181 and a MAE of 0.2070. Likewise, the analysis between the dimensions studied, purchasing management stands out with a negative coefficient of -0.4978, which shows that its optimization will generate a positive impact on production costs, contrary to the case with the other two dimensions, which are: storage management and inventory management, which resulted in positive coefficients (0.7457 and 0.4667), which shows that their optimization does not necessarily generate a positive impact on production costs, but quite the opposite, that their inadequate management On the contrary, it can harm production costs. These results highlight the inherent need that Peruvian paper companies must have in being able to implement updated logistics systems, capable of integrating advanced statistical tools such as the use of ANN and MCO, which can scientifically help better decision making, allowing thereby improving your supply processes and thus being able to reduce your production costs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".