MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385777037 · doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2023.6.002

Incentive mechanisms for managing local subcontractors in international construction projects

2023· article· en· W4385777037 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alaeldin Abdalla, Xiaodong Li, Song Ziyang, Fan Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Project Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIncentiveProcurementBusinessStructural equation modelingFinanceIndustrial organizationMarketingEconomicsMicroeconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the domain of international construction projects, managing supply chains presents distinct challenges due to the intricate task of coordinating multiple stakeholders within diverse cultural, economic, and regulatory contexts. Prior research highlights the significance of incentive mechanisms and collaborative procurement practices, yet the effectiveness of these strategies in augmenting performance for international projects has not been extensively examined. This investigation explores the effects of financial and non-financial incentives on the performance of global construction projects, with a focus on the mediating role of cooperation. Data were gathered from Chinese international contractors and local suppliers and subsequently analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling. The results reveal two separate pathways of influence. Firstly, financial incentives exhibited substantial direct and indirect impacts on project performance; secondly, while non-financial incentives did not directly affect project performance, they significantly impacted cooperation levels, which in turn mediated the relationship between non-financial incentives and project performance. This study provides essential perspectives for managing international construction projects, emphasizing the critical need for the combined application of financial and non-financial incentives to foster cooperation and ultimately achieve superior project outcomes.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Project ManagementSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207