The Impact of Supply Chain Management Practices on Supply Chain Performance in Jordan: The Moderating Effect of Competitive Intensity
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
The purpose of this study is to test the impact of supply chain management practices on supply chainperformance in terms of supply chain efficiency and supply chain effectiveness. Additionally, we investigate themoderating effect of competitive intensity on the relationship between supply chain management practices andsupply chain performance. Data for this research were collected from 104 manufacturing companies in Jordan.Hierarchical regressions were used to test the hypothesized relationships. The results indicate that three supplychain management practices, internal integration, information sharing, and postponement, but not supplierintegration and customer integration, significantly and positively affect supply chain efficiency performance.Competitive intensity moderates the relationship between each of internal integration, supplier integration, andcustomer integration, and supply chain efficiency performance. The results also show that three supply chainmanagement practices, internal integration, customer integration, and postponement, but not supplier integrationand information sharing, significantly and positively affect supply chain effectiveness performance. Competitiveintensity moderates the relationship between each of customer integration and information sharing, and supplychain effectiveness performance.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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