MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bridging the gap between RFID/EPC concepts, technological requirements and supply chain e-business processes.

2010· article· en· W2041273223 on OpenAlexaff
Ygal Bendavid, Luc Cassivi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRFID technology advancements
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chainBridging (networking)BusinessProcess managementAmbiguityBusiness processConfusionComputer scienceSupply chain managementElectronic businessInternet of ThingsKnowledge managementBusiness modelMarketingWorld Wide WebWork in processComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supply chain pressures have caused some firms to reexamine their processes.In doing so, firms are exploring emerging technology such as RFID to enable seamless exchange of information within their supply chain.While RFID promised to "revolutionize" the way business processes are managed today, the impact and benefits of the technology are still unclear and ambiguous concepts such as "intelligent products", "smart supply chains" or "the internet of things" are still creating confusion within potential adopters.In this paper an attempt is made to (i) clarify the ambiguity surrounding RFID vs. other AIDC and IOS technologies such as the EPC Network (ii) specify the technology readiness & IT related requirements of actual and emerging applications, and (iii) propose a framework to highlight how the technology can be used to support RFID/EPC enabled ecommerce processes and support practitioners and academicians in assessing the impact of RFID on electronic supply chain business processes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0130.017
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce researchSame topicRFID technology advancementsFrench-language works237,207