MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039517609 · doi:10.1142/9789814417983_0018

RISK REDUCTION OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN THROUGH POOLING LOSSES IN CASE OF BANKRUPTCY OF SUPPLIERS USING THE BLACK-SCHOLES-MERTON PRICING MODEL

2013· article· en· W2039517609 on OpenAlexaff
Raul Valverde, Malleswara Talla

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBankruptcyPoolingSupply chainReduction (mathematics)Black–Scholes modelBusinessEconomicsEconometricsActuarial scienceMicroeconomicsComputer scienceFinanceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recession times, slower demand, shrunk liquidity, and increasing pressure on cost can lead to bankruptcy of suppliers. The risks due to supplier bankruptcy include (a) losses due to supply chain disruption, (b) delayed or stopped finished goods shipments, (c) difficulty in finding cost-effective alternate suppliers and sourcing contracts, (d) emergency procurements, (e) loss of reputation and market share loss, etc. Bankruptcy models can be used to estimate the probability that a supplier may go bankruptcy, and a level of probability can be established that triggers the risks. This paper uses the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model for estimating the probability of bankruptcy of supplier by extracting and examining the riskiness in stock market price of supplier. The paper uses the pooling arrangements among companies that source from multiple suppliers as a way to reduce the risk due to supplier bankruptcy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207