MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATIVE NORMS IN THE BUYER‐SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIP: THE CHINESE EXPERIENCE

2008· article· en· W1979007531 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Supply Chain Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersCity University of Hong Kong
KeywordsBusinessIndustrial organizationSupplier relationship managementMarketingSupply chain managementSupply chain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cooperative norms are a critical governance mechanism of the buyer‐supplier relationship. Prior studies generally assume that cooperative norms are pre‐existing and utilize norms as an antecedent to other constructs. Little attention has been paid to the antecedents of the decision to develop cooperative norms. In this paper, we draw upon transaction cost economics and resource dependence theory to develop a model that depicts the key factors that determine cooperative norms. Based on the results derived from an empirical study of 278 Chinese companies, we find that these factors significantly impact cooperative norms. The study also reveals that cooperative norms positively influence suppliers' performance, which subsequently affects buyers' satisfaction.

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 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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