MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132250980 · doi:10.1108/jm2-10-2011-0050

Military supply chain flexibility measures

2014· article· en· W2132250980 on OpenAlexaff
Abderrahmane Sokri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modelling in Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Supply chainComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Operations managementOperations researchBusinessMarketingEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – So far, the author lacks a comprehensive definition of military supply chain (SC) flexibility, as well as performance measures to evaluate it. This paper aims to address these gaps. It seeks to develop performance measures to assess the flexibility of a military SC. Design/methodology/approach – Volume flexibility is measured as the coefficient of variation of the demand quantity. Delivery side is measured in two stages using two ratios: customer satisfaction ratio and delivery flexibility ratio. Findings – Building on the flexibility literature, novel performance measures were developed to assess the volume flexibility (the ability to change the level of moved products) and delivery flexibility (the ability to meet short lead times). Research limitations/implications – This study characterizes the behaviour of a military SC by focusing on the volume and delivery sides. Efficiency, for example, is not within the scope of this analysis. Practical implications – The results of this paper could serve as a means to compare between SCs with drastically different sizes. Originality/value – This paper presents a novel ways to examine the flexibility of a military distribution process. The developed measures of flexibility are relevant, simple, dimensionless, and action-oriented.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Modelling in ManagementSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207