MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1691336297 · doi:10.6000/2371-1647.2015.01.01

Integrated Quantitative Business Network Planning: Towards a New Understanding of Supply Chain Management

2015· article· en· W1691336297 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Jahr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advances in Management Sciences & Information Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chainStructuringComputer scienceSupply chain managementNegotiationProcess managementProduction (economics)Supply networkPoint (geometry)Frame (networking)Quantitative analysis (chemistry)Knowledge managementRisk analysis (engineering)Management scienceBusinessMarketingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In business management quantitative modelling is a core competency. It enables structuring various complex problems; reduce systems to their relevant elements and to make objective and clear decisions. This especially applies to production-distribution networks which are formed by multiple independent and globally active companies. Here, individual goals and collective tasks meet so that experienced-based knowledge is no longer satisfactory. A literature review showed that there is no satisfactory concept available for superior network and quantitative operational management in multi-tier business networks. Therefore, in this article we focus quantitative supply chain models as starting point for stipulations among independent network partners. First, we deduce the main elements of quantitative modelling for inter- and intra-organisational production-distribution planning. Thereby, we present an extension of the Two-Stage-Production-Distribution-Problem which can be used as starting point for iterative supply chain coordination. Based on a literature review we introduce a novel pivotal point supply chain management model. The approach induces ongoing alignment of the strategic, tactic and operative tasks. On each level of this hierarchical planning frame specific plans are computed for comparison and adjustment. The advantages of this approach can be found in the reliable objective basis for negotiations and the repeatable combined inter- and intra-organisational management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.012
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advances in Management Sciences & Information SystemsSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207