Identification of overseas vendor selection criteria used by Canadian apparel buyers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine the criteria used by members of the textile and apparel chain to select overseas vendors. Of specific interest is the value (if any) of ISO 9000 registration, i.e. whether Canadian apparel buyers are influenced by such registration, and whether there are determinants of how buyers respond to registration when selecting vendors. Design/methodology/approach A list of 16 criteria used by textile and apparel buyers to select overseas vendors was generated based on the literature, in‐depth interviews, and content analysis of a major industry publication. The criteria were tested for importance by use of a survey of representatives of the textile‐apparel supply chain in Canada. Findings Criteria relating to a vendor's flexibility and responsiveness were most important. Registration to a quality program such as ISO 9000 was not considered important nor did it seem to give an overseas vendor a business advantage over its domestic non‐registered counterpart. Two factors, category of apparel firm and the firm's use of quality programs, were potential determinants of favorable responses to registration. Originality/value This study furthers the understanding of importer behavior and overseas vendor selection criteria as well as the importance of ISO 9000 registration to buyers in the soft goods industries.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it