MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321502895 · doi:10.1016/j.jmse.2022.12.001

The effect of high-involvement human resource management practices on supply chain resilience and operational performance

2023· article· en· W4321502895 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Minhao Gu, Yanming Zhang, Dan Li, Baofeng Huo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Science and Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsResilience (materials science)BusinessProcess managementHuman resource managementSupply chainSupply chain managementEnvironmental resource managementKnowledge managementComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMarketingMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supply chain (SC) resilience is an increasingly important topic for practitioners and academics because it is a competitive weapon for firms to cope with SC disruptive risks. This study examines the impact of high-involvement human resource management practices on SC resilience from the ability-motivation-opportunity perspective. It also examines the relationship between the dimensions of SC resilience and operational performance. Based on data collected from 206 Chinese manufacturers, the proposed hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling. The results indicated that employee participation played the most powerful role in improving supplier, customer, and internal resilience. Moreover, employee skills only facilitate internal and customer resilience but have no significant impact on supplier resilience. By contrast, employee incentives do not influence the dimension of SC resilience. It was also found that both internal and customer resilience have positive effects on operational performance, while supplier resilience has no significant effect. The findings contribute to literature and practice.

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 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)0.005
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 score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations60
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management Science and EngineeringSame topicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207