MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159403790 · doi:10.1080/19427867.2021.1923305

Adoption patterns of autonomous technologies in Logistics: evidence for Niagara Region

2021· article· en· W3159403790 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amir Mohammadian Amiri, Mark R. Ferguson, Saiedeh Razavi

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban and Freight Transport Logistics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEmerging technologiesSupply chainProduct (mathematics)Affect (linguistics)Task (project management)Industrial organizationMarketingComputer scienceEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the well-known benefits that autonomous technologies bring to supply chain and logistics, the adoption of such technologies remains a challenging task. This study seeks to investigate how firms that are associated with the generation of freight movements in Niagara Region (Canada) will respond to new autonomous technologies. Structural Equation Modeling was used to extract meaningful features from the dataset obtained from an extensive and in-depth survey. The survey was designed to help better understand firms’ views regarding autonomous technologies. The results showed that firms with a higher percentage of e-commerce sales are more likely to adopt autonomous technologies. Results also showed that third-party logistics providers are likely to play an important role in facilitating a path to adoption. The number of product lines, the number of transportation assets, and the number of import countries are other important contributing factors that can affect firms’ levels of interest in autonomous technologies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation LettersSame topicUrban and Freight Transport LogisticsFrench-language works237,207