Finding Traceability Granularity Influencing Factors Using Rough Set Method: An Empirical Analysis of Vegetable Companies in Tianjin City, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness evaluation of the traceability system (TS) is a tool for enterprises to achieve the required traceability level. It plays an important role not only for planning system implementation before development but also for analyzing system performance once the system is in use. In the present work, we evaluate traceability granularity using a comprehensive and quantifiable model and try to find its influencing factors via an empirical analysis with 80 vegetable companies in Tianjin, China. We collect granularity indicators mostly through the TS platform to ensure the objectivity of the data and use the TS granularity model to evaluate the granularity score. The results show that there is an obvious imbalance in the distribution of companies as a function of score. The number of companies (21) scoring in the range (50,60) exceeded the number in the other score ranges. Furthermore, the influencing factors on traceability granularity were analyzed using a rough set method based on nine factors pre-selected using a published method. The results show that the factor "number of TS operation staff" is deleted because it is unimportant. The remaining factors rank according to importance as follows: Expected revenue > Supply chain (SC) integration degree > Cognition of TS > Certification system > Company sales > Informationization management level > System maintenance investment > Manager education level. Based on these results, the corresponding implications are given with the goal of (i) establishing the market mechanism of high price with high quality, (ii) increasing government investment for constructing the TS, and (iii) enhancing the organization of SC companies.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".