MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417422014 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2025.9.003

Design and development of a forecasting interface and dynamic sales dashboard for enhanced inventory management

2025· article· en· W4417422014 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rana Yasser AbuRahmah, Ghaliah Aldayel, Hayat Alanzi, Abdullah Yasser AbuRahmah, Madiha Rafaqat

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDashboardInterface (matter)VisualizationDemand forecastingProcess (computing)Inventory managementSales forecastingInventory control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective inventory management primarily relies on precise demand forecasting, an essential yet challenging aspect for companies pursuing operational excellence. This paper outlines the design and implementation of a forecasting interface integrated with a sales dashboard to enhance demand prediction accuracy and inventory decision-making. The interface incorporates four established forecasting techniques—Naïve, Moving Average, Weighted Moving Average, and Exponential Smoothing—to systematically address demand fluctuations. Created in Excel and automated with VBA, it provides reorder points, safety stock levels, and forecasted demand, along with other distinctly user-friendly inputs and outputs. In addition, a dynamic sales dashboard has been developed with visual features representing historical and projected demand, sales distribution by products and regions which further facilitate detailed analysis and informed inventory management decisions. This study outlines the interface and dashboard development process along with important codes. It also highlights the practical implications of integrating technical forecasting methods with intuitive visualization tools to enhance inventory management substantially. The forecasting interface and sales dashboard were further verified and validated through different scenarios including: high demand in season peaks, managing with variation in lead time issues, and forecasting in case of launching new product.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207