MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991756349

Status of electronic data interchange in the forest products industry

2000· article· en· W2991756349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Dupuy, Richard P. Vlosky

Bibliographic record

VenueCivil War Book Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronic data interchangeBusinessCommitWood industryMarketingDatabaseComputer scienceForestry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic data interchange (EDI) is computer-to-computer electronic transmission of business documents between business trading partners. The documents are in structured formats that can be processed by both party's computer application software. This paper discusses results of a study of EDI usage by forest products manufacturers (primary solid wood/pulp and paper) in the United States and Canada. Sixteen percent of respondents indicated that their company is currently conducting EDI. Of the respondents not currently conducting EDI, 28 percent indicated that their company planned to conduct EDI by the year 2002. EDI implementation was found to be highly correlated to company size; over 85 percent of companies with 1997 sales of $5 billion or greater were EDI capable while this figure is only 2.5 percent for respondents with sales of $10 million or less. Results indicate that the main reason for EDI implementation was because of a customer request. The need to commit corporate resources and the willingness to change business practices were listed as important considerations in implementation.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivil War Book ReviewSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207