Inventory, Speculation, and Sourcing Strategies in the Presence of Online Exchanges
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
We study how online business-to-business (B2B) exchanges affect buyer-supplier relationships where an exchange takes the role of a secondary market in which buyers (of the initial product) can trade excess inventory to address supply and demand imbalances. Over the last several years, B2B exchanges have attempted to provide supply for storable industrial goods with some degree of design specification (as opposed to undifferentiated commodities). Through this research, we elucidate some aspects of how speculative online exchanges with a small number of participants might behave and the impact they will have on the use of long-term contracts for supply. By endogenizing the evolution of spot prices in response to buyers’ and their supplier’s actions, we produce price fluctuations that exhibit significant autocorrelation in such markets. We show that participating buyers accrue network benefits as the number of participating firms increases through the inventory-pooling effects, resulting in reduced costs for them. However, a supplier acting strategically will counteract such benefits by restricting availability of goods to the spot market, sacrificing short-term spot-market revenue for long-term contract volume.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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