MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214904079 · doi:10.24124/2010/bpgub1459

A balanced scorecard approach to fibre supply for Canfor Pulp Limited Partnership

2010· dissertation· en· W4214904079 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Allan Cooper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalanced scorecardGeneral partnershipStrategy mapOperations managementBusinessStrategic managementProcess managementCompetitive advantageManagementWork (physics)EngineeringMarketingMechanical engineeringFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canfor Pulp Limited Partnership (CPLP) is a pulp and paper manufacturing facility located in Prince George, British Columbia. The key component in making pulp and paper is wood fibre. Within the Fibre department, a clear strategy must be mapped that considers all of the internal and external forces at work. The objective of this study is to use the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) approach to build a strategy map for the Fibre department. Kaplan and Norton first recognized that financial measures alone could not be used to assess a company's overall performance. By including the perspectives of customers, innovation and growth, and internal business processes, one could build a more comprehensive strategy map. The current work of Kaplan and Norton outlines the process to link the strategic map to operations for competitive advantage. This study is limited to building a strategic map for CPLP's Fibre department. It is meant to be a prototype for a corporate-wide initiative encompassing the vision of the entire company. --P. ii.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccounting and Organizational ManagementFrench-language works237,207