MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2780634889

Practical Supply Chain Management Knowledge from Industry-Academia Dialogue

2017· article· en· W2780634889 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Haughton

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chainBusinessSupply chain managementChain (unit)Knowledge managementProcess managementEngineering managementComputer scienceEngineeringMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Value co-creation, which can be defined as a joint initiative by two or more supply chain members to create value that cannot be created by the sole effort of one member, is a cornerstone concept in Supply Chain Management (SCM). To provide needed clarity about the concept, the invitation-only summit "World Class Supply Chain 2017: Value Co-creation", was convened on May 10th, 2017 in Milton, Ontario. The summit brought together accomplished executives, scholars, and students in the SCM field to engage in dialogue directed at uncovering actionable insights about three crucial issues: The business benefits of value co-creation The actions required for successful value co-creation The obstacles to value co-creation and ways to overcome them \nThe deliberations covered an extensive range of content that included concrete real-world examples to reinforce the insights. Those insights can be summarized in the following three major points: Information technology innovations can (a) come from an industry’s established players instead of only from new entrants and (b) significantly improve not only standard operational efficiency metrics in supply chains but also how supply chains parties interact with each other to create value. The suite of key success factors in value co-creation spans three major stages of activities for any organization: (i) preparing for its discussions with potential co-creation partners, (ii) having those discussions with an intent to find common ground on the most important partnership parameters, and (iii) managing the ongoing relationship(s) with selected partners. To be better poised for future success in value co-creation, today’s young, upcoming professionals (e.g., internship and entry-level jobs) must have jobs that are designed with a view to nurturing interpersonal skills in forming and sustaining effective inter-organizational business relationships.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0160.020
Scholarly communication0.0210.022
Open science0.0040.022
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)Same topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207