Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research provides a framework for assessing risks in smart supply chains using a quantitative approach. This study identifies the risk factors in smart supply chains based on an extensive literature review and interviews with professionals. By analyzing different concepts of the previous frameworks, a new one is proposed for the smart supply chain. This new framework is applied to the data collected from a survey of Canadian supply chain professionals (n = 56). The authors conducted an exploratory factor analysis to examine the construct validity of the survey results. After evaluating and assessing risks for different smart supply chain risk factors, some constructs were developed. The survey's results point to the most important risk factors for the smart supply chain, prioritized based on their high probabilities and impacts. These include risk of complexity, web application failure, talent shortage, and high-cost risk. The results also show that the most commonly implemented smart technologies in the supply chain sector are bar codes and social media.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".