Supply Chain Collaboration Between Retailers and Manufacturers: Do They Trust Each Other?
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
This study examines the collaboration in the food supply chain focusing on two chain partners: the retailers and the manufacturers. The authors examine the impact of key factors on collaboration performance including trust and the duration of collaboration. This study compares and contrasts the perceptions by retailers and manufacturers on the role of supply chain management. It illustrates that different food supply chain partners perceive differently the key critical factors which lead to supply chain effectiveness and casts doubts on the viability of current collaboration efforts which aim to achieve mutual benefits across the entire supply chain. It shows that the effectiveness of collaboration, and thus the functioning of the food supply chain, is highly dependent on retailers′ initiative to build and foster trust with their partners. It also depends on manufacturers′ ability to fulfil a complex set of retailers′ requirements including physical distribution management, commitment to the partnership, and effective information management. Managerial implications are discussed particularly for small and medium sized companies and directions for future research are provided.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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