MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022959048 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v5n3p30

Management of Supply Chain: X-to-order Concepts vs Make-to-stock Model

2014· article· en· W2022959048 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Athanassios Mihiotis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chainBuild to orderOrder (exchange)Supply chain managementStock (firearms)Industrial organizationPersonalizationComputer scienceProduction (economics)BusinessOrder processingStock managementProcess managementMarketingMicroeconomicsEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a challenging market, companies’ ability to act faster is considered a basic advantage. From a value chain aspect, when a company cannot change its internal production processes and the external supply streams according to the demand requirements, this may lead to sales reduction or stock left-overs. X-to-order concepts [where X=Α(ssemble), Μ(ake)/Β(uilt) and Ε(ngineer)], are key types of supply chain planning, where the production process starts after the orders are placed. Those methods have caught the attention of both researchers and businesses because of the advantages they offer in business procedures and the customization of consumers needs. The aim of this paper is to present the framework of supply chain management of the X-to-order concepts in comparison to the make-to-stock model and depict the main differences between these two approaches.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicProduct Development and CustomizationFrench-language works237,207