MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993561545 · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2012.10.003

Reducing uncertainty in supplier selection decisions: Antecedents and outcomes of procedural rationality

2012· article· en· W1993561545 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 Operations Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic Procurement and Policy
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRationalitySituational ethicsSelection (genetic algorithm)Structural equation modelingBusinessPsychologyKnowledge managementEconomicsComputer scienceSocial psychologyArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Supplier selection decisions are characterized by a high degree of uncertainty. We draw upon the behavioral operations management and decision‐making literatures to examine factors that lead to the adoption of procedural rationality as a decision strategy. In addition, we emphasize the effect of procedural rationality on decision‐makers’ perceived uncertainty and subsequent supplier decision performance. Our structural equation model with cross‐country survey data from 461 respondents in the United States and China reveals that (i) organizational, situational, and personal antecedents significantly influence the use of procedural rationality, (ii) procedural rationality is effective in reducing uncertainty in supplier selection decisions, and (iii) the reduction in decision uncertainty improves supplier decision performance. We also emphasize contextual idiosyncrasies between China and the United States.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · 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