Association Between Supply Chain Glitches and Operating Performance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper empirically documents the association between supply chain glitches and operating performance. The results are based on a sample of 885 glitches announced by publicly traded firms. Changes in various operating performance metrics for the sample firms are compared against a sample of control firms of similar size and from similar industries. In the year leading up to the announcement, the control-adjusted mean percent changes in operating income, return on sales, and return on assets for the sample firms are −107%, −114%, and −92%, respectively. During this same period, the control-adjusted changes in the level of return on sales and return on assets are −13.78% and −2.32%, respectively. Relative to controls, firms that experience glitches report on average 6.92% lower sales growth, 10.66% higher growth in cost, and 13.88% higher growth in inventories. More importantly, firms do not quickly recover from the negative economic consequences of glitches. During the two-year time period after the glitch announcement, operating income, sales, total costs, and inventories do not improve. We also find that it does not matter who caused the glitch, what the reason was for the glitch, or what industry a firm belongs to—glitches are associated with negative operating performance across the board.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it