Assessing the factors for humanitarian logistics digital business ecosystem (HLDBE) using a novel integrated correlation coefficient and standard deviation - combined compromise solution (CCSD-CoCoSo) method
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study updates Humanitarian Logistics Digital Business Ecosystem framework coupled with the development of a proposed integrated CCSD-CoCoSo MCDM method to rank factors used in assessing humanitarian and business logistics actor’s propensity to use, diffuse, and adopt a collaborative digital business ecosystem platform for their future operational use. Employing nine criteria derived from technology innovation theories and institutional theory, and 28 experts comprising our decision matrix. The findings report perceived relative advantage, perceived safety and security, and infrastructure and expertise as the top three vital criteria that experts believe when addressed in an ecosystem platform for humanitarian and business logistics actors it would encourage a collaboration for their sustainable future operations. With organisational culture and structure as the least prioritised criteria. The study concludes that the CCSD-CoCoSo obtained results are objective, validating, and that this model is useful and suitable for MCDM analysis and policy making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it