MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755240703

Simulating The Impact Of Operational, Logistical And Contractual Factors In The Financial Performance Of Aerospace Supply Chains

2017· article· en· W2755240703 on OpenAlexaff
D. Allen, Joseph Butterfield, Stephen Drummond, Adrian Murphy, Stephen J. Robb

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Portal (Queen's University Belfast) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransport and Logistics Innovations
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chainAerospaceBusinessFinanceIndustrial organizationAeronauticsMarketingEngineeringAerospace engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the key drivers in successful outsourcing decisions is the achievement of cost benefits for stakeholders across the supply chain. It is well established that enhancing the efficiency of operational and logistical activities can improve financial performance and there is an increasing awareness of the need to understand the relationship between the financial performance of supply chains, the activities that occur within them and the external factors that can influence them. To address this, the cash conversion cycle (CCC) is becoming a popular metric in supply chain management as it connects the activities performed by supply chain members to the cash flow between them.<br/>This paper uses a Design of Experiment methodology to identify the influence of the operational, logistical and contractual variables encountered in manufacturing supply chains on financial performance, specifically the CCC, inventory holding costs, and free cash flow (FCF). A discrete event simulation model of an aerospace subassembly line is used as an exemplar. The results lend credibility to using the Taguchi Method although its suitability depends on the format of the metrics used. The results also suggest the need to model variable cycle times for operations and logistics depend on inventory levels in the system.<br/>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Portal (Queen's University Belfast)Same topicTransport and Logistics InnovationsFrench-language works237,207