MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121717061 · doi:10.1561/0200000096-1

Trade Credit in Supply Chains: Multiple Creditors and Priority Rules

2020· article· en· W3121717061 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFoundations and Trends® in Technology Information and Operations Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWorking Capital and Financial Performance
Canadian institutionsBooth University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrade creditDebtorBusinessCreditorSupply chainOrder (exchange)DebtFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Priority rules determine the order of repayment to different creditors when the debtor cannot repay all of his debt. In this chapter, we study how different priority rules influence trade credit usage and supply chain efficiency under the risk-sharing role of trade credit. We find that with only demand risk, when the wholesale price is exogenous, trade credit with high priority can lead to high chain efficiency, yet trade credit with low priority allows more retailers to obtain trade credit and suppliers to gain higher profits. When the supplier has control of wholesale price, however, the supplier should extend unlimited trade credit, deeming priority rules irrelevant. When other non-demand risks, especially those with longer terms in nature, are present, we show several scenarios when the optimal trade credit policy should change according to different risks, and that in general, trade credit with low priority results in higher chain efficiency.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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