Performance measurement of AMT: a cross‐regional study
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 To examine the relationship of performance in advanced manufacturing technologies (AMT) to the levels of AMT investments and planning and implementation activities in two regions of America: Anglo‐Saxon (USA and Canada) and Hispanic (Mexico and Costa Rica). Design/methodology/approach Survey methodology was employed to collect data. The instrument was translated into Spanish for administration in the Hispanic region. Exploratory factor analysis was used to establish discriminant validity of the constructs under investigation. Through multiple regression analysis, predictors for two types of performance (organizational and operational) were examined. Findings Both types of performance are reasonably predicted by the AMT investment and planning and implementation factors. Performance predictors are different between the two regions. Research limitations/implications There are limitations common to survey research (e.g. subjective perceptions and respondent bias). Also, results depart from the literature in terms of the predictors for operational and organizational performance. This can be due to other complex relationships among the variables not identifiable by regression analysis. Future work should address this by using more sophisticated statistical tools such as structural equation modeling. Originality/value The study can help managers understand the factors leading to a successful AMT implementation. This is one of the first studies on AMT in developing countries; and as such, it should encourage more research in these countries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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