Ordering Behavior Under Supply Risk:An Experimental Investigation
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
As supply chains become increasingly complex and global in their scale, supplier selection and management in the face of disruption risk has become one of the most challenging tasks for modern managers. Several novel model-based approaches to managing such risks have been developed in the academic literature, but how behavioral tendencies may affect procurement decisions under such conditions has received relatively less attention. In this paper, we present results from a study where paid subjects were asked to place orders from two suppliers who differ in their costs and risks to satisfy a fixed amount of end-customer demand. We show that under such a scenario, it is theoretically optimal to sole source either from the more reliable (and more costly) supplier or from the more risky but cheaper supplier, depending on cost and risk parameters. Subjects in our experiment, however, show a systematic tendency to diversify their orders between the two sources. We document this diversification tendency in procurement decisions and its possible impact on profits under various cost and risk settings as well as comment on various ordering behavior observed during the experiments. We also establish that bounded rationality of subjects can provide a possible rationale for the above phenomenon.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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