Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: We study a procurement problem, where the supplier holds superior cost information and can learn to improve efficiency over time. Despite its prevalence, the supply chain literature provides limited guidance on how to manage learning suppliers with evolving private information. Methodology/results: We use mechanism design. We show that supplier learning has both efficiency and agency effects, it can induce countervailing incentives, and the agency effect can overwhelm the efficiency effect. As a result, (i) supplier learning can hurt profits, (ii) information asymmetry can improve efficiency, (iii) production distortion can go upward, and (iv) ignoring the agency effect of learning can mislead contract design and inflict severe losses. Managerial implications: Our results suggest that previous studies may have overlooked the downside of learning and overestimated the harm of information asymmetry. Moreover, our results help explain when and why firms should overproduce output and disclose private information voluntarily. By highlighting the strategic role of supplier learning, this study sharpens our understanding of supply chain management. Funding: L. Gao is partly supported by the CoR research grant at University of California, Riverside. W. Zhang is partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant 71821002]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.0285 .
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".