MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040020210 · doi:10.1108/09600030310460990

Comparison of Asian and European logistics systems

2003· article· en· W2040020210 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

VenueInternational Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)BusinessRanking (information retrieval)ExcellenceTier 2 networkTier 1 networkCluster (spacecraft)Operations managementMarketingIndustrial organizationComputer scienceGeographyPolitical scienceEconomicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research compares the logistics systems of Asia and Europe and categorises them into distinct levels of logistics excellence. First, the context in Asia and in Europe is summarized. Then, attributes of a world‐class logistics system are proposed. By applying cluster analysis to data from authoritative sources, we objectively segregate European and Asian logistics systems into three logistics tiers. There are several surprises, the main one being that the UK is classified Tier 2 (not as favourable as Tier 1). A prioritized set of attributes that the UK could improve on to qualify for the Tier 1 group is suggested. Sensitivity analyses are conducted to determine changes to the classifications. After finding that the top‐ranking logistics systems of Europe and Asia are from Denmark and Singapore, respectively, those two countries are studied in detail to draw logistics lessons applicable elsewhere.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.263 · 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