MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077897469 · doi:10.1108/01445150710724711

The cost of flexibility

2007· article· en· W2077897469 on OpenAlexaff
Johannes Van Biesebroeck

Bibliographic record

VenueAssembly Automation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMerger and Competition Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Variety (cybernetics)Automotive industryProductivityScope (computer science)Industrial organizationProduction (economics)Economies of scaleEconomies of scopeOriginalityScale (ratio)Fixed costBusinessEconomicsOperations managementEngineeringMarketingComputer scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose In the automobile industry, the variety of vehicles produced continues to increase. At the same time, historically firms have incurred a sizeable productivity penalty for producing more variety in their plants. The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: what actions have firms taken to control this productivity penalty and what were the costs? Design/methodology/approach Estimate a number of statistical models of the effect of variety on productivity for a sample that includes almost all assembly plants in North America from 1994 to 2004. Findings Evidence is found for fixed costs associated with activities that are complementary to producing variety and for a trade‐off between scale economies and flexibility. Research limitations/implications Provides evidence that while flexibility has an advantage to cope with increasing variety, there are non‐negligible costs as well. Originality/value A first systematic evaluation on the scale‐scope trade‐off and a quantification of the gains from production flexibility in the automotive industry.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssembly AutomationSame topicMerger and Competition AnalysisFrench-language works237,207