Identification of Core Suppliers Based on E-Invoice Data Using Supervised Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since not all suppliers are to be managed in the same way, a purchasing strategy requires proper supplier segmentation so that the most suitable strategies can be used for different segments. Most existing methods for supplier segmentation, however, either depend on subjective judgements or require significant efforts. To overcome the limitations, this paper proposes a novel approach for supplier segmentation. The objective of this paper is to develop an automated and effective way to identify core suppliers, whose profit impact on a buyer is significant. To achieve this objective, the application of a supervised machine learning technique, Random Forests (RF), to e-invoice data is proposed. To validate the effectiveness, the proposed method has been applied to real e-invoice data obtained from an automobile parts manufacturer. Results of high accuracy and the area under the curve (AUC) attest to the applicability of our approach. Our method is envisioned to be of value for automating the identification of core suppliers. The main benefits of the proposed approach include the enhanced efficiency of supplier segmentation procedures. Besides, by utilizing a machine learning method to e-invoice data, our method results in more reliable segmentation in terms of selecting and weighting variables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".