MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072035884 · doi:10.1108/01443570810895294

The climate for co‐operation: buyer‐supplier beliefs and behavior

2008· article· en· W2072035884 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 Operations & Production Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessRespondentContext (archaeology)MarketingStructural equation modelingFlexibility (engineering)Industrial organizationSupplier relationship managementDysfunctional familySupply chainSupply chain managementPsychologyEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the climate for co‐operation, from both the supplier and buyer perspectives, for its impact on co‐operative activities. Climate encompasses the constructs of cross functional barriers, participation by the respondent in strategic customer/supply decisions and expectation of the continuity of the relationship, competitive pressure and institutionalized beliefs about co‐operation in the firm's industry. Design/methodology/approach The design of the study is based on a cross‐sectional mail‐based survey of 89 buyer and supplier dyads, involving 178 manufacturing companies. First, the psychometric properties of the proposed constructs were assessed. Then the relationships among the proposed constructs were tested by structural equation modeling for the supplier and then the buyer samples. Findings Both parties' co‐operative behaviors were strongly influenced by the expected continuity of the relationship. Suppliers differed from buyers in that they were influenced by institutional beliefs about co‐operation. Involvement in decision making positively affected shared planning activities for the suppliers whereas it affected relationship flexibility for the buyers. Lastly, buyers in contrast to suppliers were influenced by competitive pressure. Research limitations/implications As a cross‐sectional study about complex inter‐firm relationships, the research does not directly capture relationship effects over time. The paper also does not address how climate affects the formulation and implementation of dysfunctional buyer‐supplier relationships. Practical implications Buyers and suppliers should be aware that there are significant similarities and differences in how their partners respond to the context in which they operate. This knowledge is important in understanding what drives the other party's behavior in the formal and informal negotiations and problem solving that characterize an ongoing relationship. Originality/value The research uses dyadic data to understand both sides of the buyer supplier relationship. It introduces constructs such as institutional belief and cross‐functional barriers and functional involvement in strategic planning as components of a new concept called co‐operative climate. This concept is found to be relevant to both buyer and supplier perspectives.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.265 · 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